U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCES

MANAGING WATER FOR DROUGHT

NATIONAL STUDY OF WATER MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT

SEPTEMBER 1994 IWR REPORT 94-NDS-8

MANAGING WATER FOR DROUGHT

PREPARED BY

WILLIAM J. WERICK

AND

WILLIAM WHIPPLE, JR.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

WATER RESOURCES SUPPORT CENTER

INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESOURCES

NATIONAL STUDY OF WATER MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT

SEPTEMBER 1994 IWR REPORT 94-NDS-8

iii

Findings of the National Drought Study

The nature of drought

1. Definition. Droughts are periods of time when natural or managed water systems do not provide

enough water to meet established human and environmental uses because of natural shortfalls in

precipitation or streamflow.

2. Drought management is a subset of water supply planning. The distinction between a “drought”

problem and a “water supply” problem is essentially defined by the nature of the best solution. Urban

areas that persistently use more than the safe yield of their water supply systems may have frequent or

even standing drought declarations that could only be eliminated through strategic water supply

measures. Those measures can be structural, such as the construction of new reservoirs, or nonstructural, such as conservation.

3. Drought response problems are water management problems. Participants at a National 

Science Foundation Drought Workshop concluded that attempts to understand and address the failings

of water management during drought would be unsuccessful unless shortcomings in the larger context 

of water management are also understood and addressed. This was also one of the conclusions drawn 

by the Corps of Engineers in the first year of the National Drought Study (IWR, 91-NDS-1), and the

premise upon which the DPS method was built.

The seriousness of the problem

4. Concern is widespread. Fifty percent of all water supply utilities asked their customers to reduce

consumption during the 1988 drought (Moreau, 1989). In a 1990 poll, forty-one percent of U.S. 

mayors anticipated water shortages in the next several years, caused by drought, growing population,

water pollution, and leaks from distribution lines (Conserv90).

5. Water use is stable nationally. Several reports in the 1970s forecast rapid increases in American

water use, creating an impression that lingers to this day that water use is increasing. But the National

Council on Public Works Improvement reviewed several nationwide studies and concluded that each

“faced several problems in developing a comprehensive and reliable estimate” of future water supply

needs. In fact, total American water use is less now than it was in 1980, although there is growth and

more intense competition for water in some regions.

6. Several states reported that water quality suffered during drought because low flows affected their

ability to dilute effluents from wastewater treatment plants and sustain the aquatic ecosystem.

7. Drought impacts are difficult to measure. This is because:

! They are often reported as reductions from the benefits a water system can support when

water is plentiful; this approach often overstates the problem because these drought “costs” are

usually based on sizing the water system so as to maximize return on the economic and

environmental investments in the water system and is not necessarily based on efficient use of

the water resource.

! Impacts caused by drought are difficult to separate from impacts that occur coincidentally

during a drought. Because droughts continue for much longer than floods, earthquakes, or 
iv

wind storms, external factors (such as recessions, market changes, land management, and 

fishing practices) may also contribute to the impacts associated with drought, as was the case

recently in California.

! Regional drought impacts are often more than offset at the national level by gains in

production somewhere else in the country.

8. Drought impacts understate our aversion to droughts. Despite the overestimation of impacts

induced by the above factors, the level of conflict and anxiety droughts stimulate is still apt to be far

greater than the magnitude of impacts would suggest. On a national and even a state level, the 

impacts to agriculture and urban areas from the California drought were relatively small, but the 

drought was newsworthy for years and played a significant role in the passage of new state and new

federal laws. Observations of droughts in the 1980's suggest that turmoil will be greater when the 

losses are felt more personally and when long term entitlements to water use are threatened.

Shortcomings in the way we have dealt with droughts

9. Learning from the past. Lessons learned during ongoing droughts are too rarely documented,

critically analyzed, and shared with other regions;

10. Price and efficient use. Water is almost always priced below its economic value to users or full

cost to produce. This tends to impede efficient use of water.

11. Assessing risk. Information about expected drought severity and duration is not readily available,

so risk assessments cannot be quantified as well.

12. The problems are integrated, solutions are not. Management responsibilities for problems that

are physically integrated in a river basin are fragmented by agency missions and political boundaries. 

The many disciplines required to analyze drought problems and develop and institute solutions are

poorly coordinated.

13. Typical problems with traditional drought plans include (IWR, 91-NDS-1):

! they may not recognize newer uses of water

! they are usually designed for the drought of record, without consideration of the rarity of 

that drought

! they often are not understood or endorsed by those who will suffer the impacts of the 

drought

! they may not sufficiently address equity issues or economic differences in the use of water

! they are often triggered by indicators not related in a known way to impacts.

 

! they are better characterized as documents rather than ways of behaving, and so their

effectiveness diminishes as staff changes occur and time passes between plan preparation and

drought.
v

14. There are three time frames for response planning. Drought responses can be classified as

strategic, tactical, and emergency measures. Strategic measures are long term physical and 

institutional responses such as water supply structures, water law, and plumbing codes. Tactical

measures, like water rationing, are developed in advance to respond to expected short term water

deficits. Emergency measures are implemented as an ad hoc response to conditions that are too 

specific or rare to warrant the development of standing plans.

15. Technology transfer. Methods for managing water for multiple objectives have been developed

and tested over decades, but that tradition resides in the agencies that built the extensive complex of

federal dams, not in the organizations responsible for preparing tactical drought plans. This expertise

must be transferred before that institutional memory is retired.

16. Law and drought. Law sometimes drives and sometimes constrains water management during

drought. Basic appropriations doctrine discourages water conservation, because water not put to

beneficial use may be lost, but many western states have modified the basic doctrine to accommodate

conservation. In addition, sixteen eastern states have legislation recognizing the need to conserve water

supplies.

17. Basin transfers and drought. Diversions are strategic measures designed to increase water 

supply reliability. During a severe drought, if the necessary facilities exist and the state law allows,

temporary interbasin diversions may be authorized to meet the needs of the most severely affected 

areas.

Lessons from the Case Studies

18. Domestic water users are willing and able to curtail water use during a drought. During the

first two years of the drought, a mixture of voluntary and mandatory conservation in California’s cities

reduced water use from 10 to 25%. In the last three years of the drought, urban conservation efforts

were generally more intense. Similar savings were recorded in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington in 

their 1992 drought.

19. Investments in infrastructure can increase the options for adaptive behavior. Water banking,

storage for instream flow maintenance, conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water, regional

interdependence, and economies of scale require a water storage, allocation and distribution system. 

California’s storage and distribution system provided the flexibility and resiliency to withstand severe

droughts, even in the face of rapidly growing population and increasing urban and environmental

demands on a fixed supply of water.

20. Droughts act as catalysts for change. Complex sociopolitical systems, which reflect a multitude

of competing and conflicting needs, are not particularly well suited for crisis management. Yet despite

these well understood and accepted deficiencies in the democratic decision making process, the overall

conclusion is that communities not only weathered the drought in a reasonably organized manner, but

also introduced a series of useful water management reforms and innovations that will influence future

water uses in a positive manner.

21. Conservation may or may not reduce drought vulnerability. To the extent that methods of

reducing water use during droughts, such as discouragement of outdoor use and physical modifications

to toilets and faucets to reduce water use, are used as long term water conservation measures that 

allow the addition of new customers to a water supply system, drought vulnerability is increased. 
vi

When normal use becomes more efficient, efficiency gains are harder to realize during a drought. But 

it is not always that simple. In the Boston Metropolitan area, for example, long term conservation will

reduce drought vulnerability because some of the water saved will also be stored for use during 

droughts and because some of the most effective long term conservation savings (such as the detection

and repair of leaks) cannot be implemented quickly enough to be as effective as a drought response.

The DPS Method

22. The lineage of the DPS method. The DPS method is derived from the traditional strategic water

resources planning framework, but addresses two common shortcomings in water management: the

separation between stakeholders and the problem solving process, and the subdivision of natural

resources management by political boundaries and limited agency missions. 

23. Drought responses are primarily behavioral. The DPS method reflects the fact that, like

responses to earthquakes and fires, drought responses are largely behavioral, and their success depends

on people understanding their role, and knowing how their actions fit into a larger response.

24. Collaboration between agencies and stakeholders can make planning much more effective.

This collaborative approach:

! harnesses the knowledge and creativity of stakeholders near the beginning of problem 

solving efforts;

! makes it more likely that stakeholders can take actions unilaterally to reduce their drought

vulnerability;

! builds broader, deeper stakeholder support for water management plans.

25. Lessons learned from past efforts at collaborative planning are abundant and must be 

heeded. The benefits of participatory planning are not guaranteed by simply making the planning

process accessible. There is a substantial body of research and practical experience with participatory

planning, especially in water resources, that is often overlooked. The temptation is to believe that

honesty and common sense will suffice. The participatory methods used and developed during the

Drought Study recognized and managed these potential liabilities:

! public involvement can involve considerable expense.

! the “public” that gets involved in planning may be self-selected and unrepresentative of the

public that will be affected by drought. 

! if the public is actually involved in the study process (as opposed to just expressing 

problems and goals in workshops or surveys), then additional efforts may be required to 

provide technical training and to coordinate the work of public task forces.

! the misapplication of the techniques of group process can result in the use of stakeholder

opinions on issues that should be addressed by experts.

! broader citizen participation increases the risk that the planning process will be slowed or

stopped.
vii

26. The problem solving team should be appropriate to the problem set. Rarely will there be one

agency or political entity whose responsibilities include all the problems a region will face during 

future droughts. The creation of the DPS team, then, is the creation of a new entity whose collective

interests and responsibilities are pertinent to the set of problems addressed. Thus, the DPS team

constitutes a new, integrated community that more closely reflects the integrated nature of the

problemshed.

27. The objectives for the drought response must be articulated early and clearly. The DPS

method uses 5 management parameters including the criteria decision makers will use in approving or

rejecting new plans, planning objectives, constraints, measures of performance, and environmental,

economic, and social effects. Developing good planning objectives early is paradoxically the most

important and most often ignored step in the drought planning process.

28. Innovations. The DPS method takes advantage of several innovations developed in parallel 

during the National Drought Study:

! The shared vision model (see Finding 29)

! Circles of influence and decision maker interviews

! Water Conservation Management

! Trigger Planning

! The National Drought Atlas

! Virtual Drought Exercises

29. Shared vision models are computer simulation models of water systems built, reviewed, and 

tested collaboratively with all stakeholders. The models represent not only the water infrastructure and

operation, but the most important effects of that system on society and the environment. Shared vision

models take advantage of new, user-friendly, graphical simulation software to bridge the gap between

specialized water models and the human decision making processes. Shared vision models helped 

DPS team members overcome differences in backgrounds, values, and agency traditions.

30. A Virtual Drought Exercise is a realistic simulation of a drought using the shared vision model 

to simulate that experience without the risk associated with real droughts. Virtual Drought Exercises 

can be used to exercise, refine and test plans, train new staff, and update plans to reflect new

information. 

31. The National Drought Atlas (IWR, 94-NDS-4) is a compendium of statistical information 

designed to help water managers and planners answer questions about the expected frequency, duration

and severity of droughts. The Atlas provides a national reference for precipitation and streamflow

statistics that will help planners and manage assess the risks involved in alternative management

strategies.
viii

32. Water conservation management is the prioritization and selection of water conservation 

measures based on their estimated benefits and costs. A new version of a widely used water use

forecasting model, IWR-MAIN, provides a powerful new tool for linking water savings with specific

combinations of water savings measures.

33. Trigger Planning is a collaborative and continuous process for updating water supply needs

assessments and responding in time, but just in time, with the necessary economic and environmental

investments necessary to address those needs. Trigger planning uses a shared vision model and the 

DPS method to minimize those investments while reducing the frequency of drought declarations 

caused by inadequate water supply. Trigger planning was tested and refined in the Boston 

metropolitan area.

34. There are simple ways to improve agency collaboration with elected officials and 

stakeholders. The DPS method used “circles of influence” to effectively and efficiently involve

stakeholders in the development of plans. The circles created new ways for people to interrelate and

interact, without destroying the old institutions, their responsibilities or advantages. In addition, during

the DPS’s, political scientists conducted interviews with elected officials and other influential political

agents. The interviews were included in reports available to the entire study team, and were used to

assure the planning process addressed issues critical to the public and elected officials.
ix

NATIONAL DROUGHT STUDY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This guidebook was produced as part of the National Study of Water Management During

Drought, which was managed by the Institute for Water Resources (IWR) of the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers. The guidebook is based on the experiences, research, and critical analysis of the 

over one hundred professionals who worked directly on the National Drought Study, and the 

many others who criticized and improved the case studies in which these methods were tested.

The principal authors of this report are Mr. William Werick, the National Drought Study manager,

and Brigadier General (Ret.) William Whipple, Jr. Material contained in the annexes was also

provided by Dr. Hanna Cortner, Ms. Allison Keyes, Mr. Charles Lancaster, Dr. Merle Lefkoff, Dr.

William Lord, Dr. Richard Palmer, Mr. Van Dyke Polhemus, Dr. Robert Waldman, Dr. Gene

Willeke, and Dr. Charles Yoe.

The ideas presented in the report owe much to the work of Dr. Eugene Z. Stakhiv, Chief of 

IWR’s Policy and Special Studies Division. Dr. Stakhiv had made the case in previous papers 

that federal planning principles were unique in that they constituted a comprehensive set of

principles for water resources planning and management that had been established and tested in an

unprecedented coalition of researchers and practioners. Moreover he demonstrated that they could

be used to address regional objectives. Under his direction, the National Drought Study 

developed these concepts one step further, applying these principles to what were primarily

regional and operational water resources matters.

Mr. Zoltan Montvai, of the Corps’ Headquarters Planning Directorate, oversaw the National

Drought Study from its inception to its final products. He assiduously reviewed and offered 

advice on making this report (and others) understandable and responsive to users’ real needs. The

Director of Planning for the Corps is Dr. G. Edward Dickey.

Dr. Richard Palmer’s contribution to this study was inestimable. Without him, there would be no

shared vision models, and the systemic planning process we present here, no matter how sound,

would be more difficult to use, and thus, less effective. His scholarship, enthusiasm, and

inventiveness motivated the rest of the Drought Study team. The intellectual influence and

experience of General Whipple, Dr. Bill Lord, and Dr. Gene Willeke are reflected in diffuse and

numerous ways in this report. David Getches offered review and counsel at critical junctures, but

even more importantly inspired the Drought Study team and others with his leadership of the Park

City Workshops sponsored by the Western Governors Association and the Western States Water

Council. Dr. Robert Brumbaugh, Dr. Gene Willeke, Ms. Germaine Hofbauer, and Mr. Gene Lilly

have formed the central core of the drought study team over the years.

Thanks also to those who reviewed earlier versions of this report and gave good advice on its

ultimate direction: Dr. Richard Punnett (ORH), Dr. Palmer, Dr. Lord, Dr. Donald Wilhite

(International Drought Information Center), Augustine J. Fredrich (University of Southern 

Indiana), Professor Harry Schwarz, Dr. Pete Loucks (Cornell University), Mr. Darryl Davis, Dr.
x

Robert Brumbaugh, Mr. Paul Pronovost, Mr. Gene Lilly and Mr. Chris Erickson. Mr. Erickson 

and the case study managers, Mr. Steve Babcock, Mr. Ronald Meade, Mr. Charles Joyce, and Mr.

Tom Lochen reviewed and revised Annex M. And finally, thanks to the many state water 

directors and federal agency contacts who provided their thoughts on how this guide could be 

most useful to them.

The report, of course, is a product of the National Drought Study. The report on the first year of

the study (NDS-1) acknowledges the many professionals who set the course and collaborative tone

for the study. Of those, however, three people deserve to be acknowledged again since they 

shaped the study in its infancy. Harry Kitch (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 

Randy Hanchey and Kyle Schilling (past and current directors of IWR) shaped the basic study

direction, making sure the scope and subject matter of the study would include non-Corps and 

non-federal problems and viewpoints.

William J. Werick

Study Manager
Table of Contents

xi

FINDINGS OF THE NATIONAL DROUGHT STUDY ......................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................ ix

FOREWORD ........................................................ xvii

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1

The larger context for water management during drought; Who should use

this guide?; How should this guide be used?; When should the DPS 

method be used?; What are these methods based on?

1 WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT ................................. 5

The Meaning of the Word “Drought”; A water resources planner’s view of

drought; A water manager’s view of drought; The rules for making

decisions, including decisions about water management during drought; 

Goals and objectives for managing water; Other common concepts in 

water management

2 THE DPS METHOD .................................................... 11

Major features of the DPS method; Organization of a DPS; Levels of 

detail and cost; The Seven Steps of the DPS Method; Computer model

building and stakeholder involvement; Group processes

3 BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS .................................. 17

Makeup of the team; Starting the DPS; Finding stakeholders; Potential

Problems of Broad Involvement; Circles of influence; The problems

4 OBJECTIVES AND METRICS ........................................... 25

Management; Decision criteria; Goals and planning objectives; 

Constraints; Performance Measures; Effects of the alternatives; 

Accounts; Resistance to the use of estimated effects in the evaluation of

alternatives; Advantages of the measuring effects by account

5 THE STATUS QUO .................................................... 33

Modelling the status quo; Selecting design drought(s); The National 

Drought Atlas; Specialized Computer Models
Table of Contents

xii

6 FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS .................................. 41

What is an alternative?; Three types of alternatives; Initial list of 

alternatives; Elements of a tactical drought plan; Integrating strategic and

tactical plans

7 EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 51

Initial screening of alternatives; Modeling; Estimating effects; Tradeoffs across

accounts; Decision Support Software

8 INSTITUTIONALIZING THE PLAN ....................................... 59

Recommending a plan; Changes in laws and regulations; Environmental

review; Negotiating Closure; The Agreement

9 EXERCISE, UPDATE, AND USE THE PLAN ................................ 65

Virtual Drought Exercise; Using the plan

10 CONCLUSION ......................................................... 69

DPS Planning Process Checklist ............................................... 70

INDEX .................................................................. 75

LIST OF ANNEXES ........................................................ 77

Annexes Following the Main Report

A - ORIGINS OF FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING GUIDANCE

B - POLITICS, ADVOCACY GROUPS, AND WATER AGENCIES

C - COMPUTER MODELS OF WATER AND RELATED SYSTEMS

D - WATER LAW AND DROUGHT

E - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES

F - ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES

G - HYDROLOGY

H - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

I - DROUGHT AND THE PUBLIC

J - CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE

K - FORECASTING WATER USE TO MANAGE WATER CONSERVATION

L - LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT 1987-1992

M - THE PRINCIPAL NATIONAL DROUGHT STUDY CASE STUDIES

N - THE NATIONAL DROUGHT ATLAS
Table of Contents

xiii

Figures

FIGURE 1. A GRAPHIC DEFINITION OF DROUGHT ................................ 6

FIGURE 2. CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE .......................................... 20

FIGURE 3. A SHARED VISION MODEL CAN ILLUSTRATE HOW STAKEHOLDER 

CONCERNS ARE CONNECTED TO MANAGEMENT OF THE WATER SYSTEM ..... 35

FIGURE 4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER AND PRODUCTION FOR ONE

STAKEHOLDER. ................................................ 36

FIGURE 5. THE QUANTIFIED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COOLING WATER AND 

PRODUCTION. ................................................. 36

FIGURE 6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SYSTEM AND STAKEHOLDER WATER. .......... 37

FIGURE 7. THE CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. .............................. 37

FIGURE 8. COUNTING THE NUMBER OF DAYS WITHOUT PROCESSING WATER. ........... 38

FIGURE 9. THE DEFINITION OF DAILY PRODUCTION LOSS. ......................... 38

FIGURE 10. CONJUNCTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER FOR DROUGHT ................... 46

FIGURE 11. TRIGGER PLANNING KEEPS ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS 

IN WATER SUPPLY LOW WHILE AVOIDING CATASTROPHIC WATER SUPPLY

FAILURES. .................................................... 48

FIGURE 12. THE COST EFFECTIVENESS FRONTIER. ................................ 56

FIGURE 13. IT COSTS $25 PER UNIT TO INCREASE OUTPUTS FROM 0 TO 80 UNITS, BUT

$50 PER UNIT TO GO FROM 100 TO 120 UNITS. ......................... 56

FIGURE 14. A SAMPLE PARTNERING AGREEMENT. ............................... 64

FIGURE F-1. ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MARKET TRANSACTIONS .................... F-3

FIGURE F-2. IN A DROUGHT, CONSUMER AND PRODUCER SURPLUS ARE REDUCED BY $20

MILLION. ..................................................... F-3

FIGURE H-1. THE ADR CONTINUUM .......................................... H-1

FIGURE H-2. INTEREST BASED NEGOTIATION CAN PRODUCE AGREEMENT ON “WIN-WIN”

ALTERNATIVES THAT MIGHT NOT BE IDENTIFIED IN POSITION BASED 

BARGAINING. ................................................. H-2

FIGURE L-1. TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA WATER USE ................................ L-2

FIGURE L-2. TWO SIX YEAR CALIFORNIA DROUGHTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY ........... L-3

FIGURE L-3. PRECIPITATION 1987-92 ......................................... L-3

FIGURE L-4. RESERVOIR STORAGE 1987-92 .................................... L-3

FIGURE L-5. RUNOFF IN WATER YEARS 1987-92 ................................. L-3

FIGURE L-6. EAST BAY MUD WATER USE 1982-91. .............................. L-4

FIGURE L-7. WATER USE AND POPULATION GROWTH, LOS ANGELES ................. L-4

FIGURE L-8. SAN DIEGO PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, WATER YEAR ENDING JUNE 30 ..... L-4

FIGURE L-9. CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE FROM 1970-1992 ...... L-5

FIGURE L-10. WATER BANK ALLOCATIONS: 1991-1992 ............................ L-5

FIGURE L-11. NATURAL FALL-RUN CHINOOK SPAWNING SALMON (1980-91) ............ L-6
Table of Contents

xiv

Figures (continued)

FIGURE M-1. THE LOCATIONS OF TEN NATIONAL DROUGHT STUDY CASE STUDIES. ....... M-1

FIGURE M-2. THE KANAWHA RIVER BASIN .................................... M-4

FIGURE M-3. DROUGHT PROBLEMS IN THE JAMES RIVER BASIN ARE CONCENTRATED IN A

5 CITY AREA. ................................................. M-7

FIGURE M-4. THE MARAIS DES CYGNES-OSAGE RIVER BASIN ...................... M-9

FIGURE M-5. THE CEDAR AND GREEN RIVER BASINS ............................ M-11

FIGURE M-6. THE MWRA SERVICE AREA .................................... M-14

FIGURE N-1. PRECIPITATION QUANTILES FOR 3 CLUSTERS IN THE SOUTHEAST ........... N-5

FIGURE N-2. QUANTILES FOR 60 MONTH DROUGHTS IN 3 CLUSTERS ................... N-5

Tables

TABLE I. THE SEVEN STEPS OF THE DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS METHOD ............ 13

TABLE II. THE FIRST WORKSHOP: EXPERTS’ UNQUANTIFIED SPECULATION ABOUT

EXPECTED IMPACTS FROM FUTURE DROUGHTS ........................ 22

TABLE III. THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT WORK IN EACH OF THE CIRCLES OF

INFLUENCE ................................................... 23

TABLE IV. WRITING A PLANNING OBJECTIVE. .................................. 27

TABLE V. PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR A TYPICAL DPS .......................... 28

TABLE VI. TYPICAL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE .............................. 30

TABLE VII. A CHECKLIST OF WATER USES, PROBLEMS, PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND

PERFORMANCE MEASURES ........................................ 32

TABLE VIII. THREE TYPES OF RESPONSES TO WATER SHORTAGES. .................... 42

TABLE IX. A LIST OF TYPICAL STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL MEASURES. ................ 49

TABLE X. AN INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ............................ 52

TABLE XI. THE COSTS PER UNIT OF OUTPUT (FOR EXAMPLE, ACRES OF WETLAND) ....... 56

TABLE XII. A MORE DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES. ..................... 57

TABLE XIII. FINAL PRESENTATIONS TO DECISION MAKERS SHOULD MAKE THE RESULTS

AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. .......................................... 62

TABLE F-I. THE METHODS PRESCRIBED IN P&G FOR ESTIMATING THE ECONOMIC

EFFECTS OF WATER MANAGEMENT IN NON-MARKET CONDITIONS. ........... F-4

TABLE K-I WATER CONSERVATION REPORTS FROM THE IWR CONSERVATION

PROGRAM .................................................... K-6

TABLE L-I. LESSONS FROM THE 1987-1992 DROUGHT ............................ L-1

TABLE L-II LESSONS FROM PREVIOUS DROUGHTS CONFIRMED IN THE 1987-1992

DROUGHT .................................................... L-2

TABLE L-III ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS ................................. L-7

TABLE M-IV. PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR TRIGGER PLANNING IN THE BOSTON AREA . M-17
Table of Contents

xv

Tables (continued)

TABLE N-I. STATION DESCRIPTIONS IN CLUSTER 35 .............................. N-3

TABLE N-II. QUANTILES FOR CLUSTER 35, NATIONAL DROUGHT ATLAS. ............... N-3

TABLE N-III. QUANTILES FOR CLUSTERS 105 AND 106 ............................. N-4

TABLE N-IV MEAN PRECIPITATION FOR STATIONS IN CLUSTER 35. .................... N-6

TABLE N-V. EXPECTED PRECIPITATION IN A 50 YEAR DROUGHT, CLUSTER 35. ........... N-7

TABLE N-VI A FEW SOUTHEASTERN STREAMGAGE STATIONS LISTED IN THE ATLAS ....... N-7

TABLE N-VII STATISTICS FOR SELECTED STREAMGAGE STATIONS ..................... N-8

TABLE N-VIII THE PERCENTAGE OF THE HISTORIC RECORD THAT THE PDSI WAS -3 OR

DRIER FOR CLUSTER 35 STATIONS IN ALABAMA. ....................... N-8
xvi
xvii

FOREWORD

Damaging, prolonged droughts in various parts of the country in the 1980's

and ’90’s have been disruptive to normal living patterns. Experience has

shown that although many states and federal agencies possess drought

contingency plans, these plans are not as effective as they should be;

droughts still cause substantial turmoil. In response to the Droughts of 

1988, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to make a nationwide

survey of this situation, with the goal of finding a better way to manage 

water during drought. This effort was titled the National Study of Water

Management During Drought. This report represents the collaborative 

work of over 100 researchers and practioners whose model approach to

water management during drought was tested and refined in several case

studies across the country.

The approach is derived from general water resources planning and

management principles, but has been broadened to accommodate the nonstructural, regional centered nature of drought management. Because of 

this, the approach can be used for water resources issues beyond just

droughts.
xviii
INTRODUCTION 1 

INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the method of Many components of the DPS approach are

improving water management during drought time-proven methods and ideas derived from

developed during the four year National federal water planning experience and

Study of Water Management During research, modified to reflect the importance 

Drought. The method was tested and refined of non-federal, non-structural responses to

in four field studies in different parts of the droughts. The most visible innovation of 

country, in which teams of water managers the National Drought Study is the use of

and users worked together to reduce drought stakeholders collaboratively built “shared

impacts. In each case, the situations are vision (computer) models” of their water

complex, involving many different uses of management environments. The DPS 

water. Because such important state and method also encourages the use of alternative

local responsibilities are involved, only a dispute resolution techniques and new

joint cooperative approach between state and statistical methods that can provide additional

federal agencies could provide satisfactory information on the expected severity and

answers. These cooperative field studies were frequency of droughts. What is most

called “Drought Preparedness Studies” (DPS) significant is that all of this has been

and the approach, the “DPS method.” integrated into a uniform, consistent 

A DPS can develop the best means of work.

minimizing adverse impacts of drought

situations with existing infrastructure and The purpose of this report is to explain the

institutions. However, in many cases, the procedure for cooperative federal-state

best management of existing facilities and Drought Preparedness Studies, to indicate 

institutions could still result in unacceptably how these studies relate to the longstanding

destructive impacts during a severe drought, principles and guidance for federal water

particularly as water demand increases with resources investigations, and to indicate the

future population growth. In such cases, the means of implementing conclusions arrived 

DPS approach can identify the need for and at in any given region. Certain parts of this

begin the process of developing agreement report will be useful to municipalities and

on the long-range water resources actions other entities engaged in drought planning

necessary to increase the capacity of the within the scope of their own responsibilities. 

region to withstand drought. Such actions However, the more important use is in 

should include full consideration of many dealing with problems which overlap

alternatives, such as conjunctive use of jurisdictions.

ground and surface water, inter-system

management coordination, other means of

achieving water quality, long range demand

management, and even new or enlarged

reservoirs.

approach that has been tested and shown to
2 INTRODUCTION

THE LARGER CONTEXT FOR WATER

MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT

WHO SHOULD USE THIS GUIDE?

HOW SHOULD THIS GUIDE BE USED?

WHEN SHOULD THE DPS METHOD BE

USED?

Most communities that suffered impacts from drought management

the droughts of the 1980's said they could

have been better prepared, including those The DPS method may also be useful in

communities that had prepared contingency dealing with emergency water shortages, 

plans which specified how the operations of such as those caused by infrastructure

water systems should change during a problems or system contamination. The DPS

drought. method is based on long term water planning

Federal water management agencies have naturally to both federal feasibility studies 

established sound principles and guidelines and non-federal water supply planning.

applicable to water resources studies. 

However, these principles have not been

widely applied to plans for water 

management during drought. This is because

so much of the responsibility for actions to

deal with drought rests in the states and

municipalities rather than in the federal

agencies. The National Drought Study team

developed and tested a method for 

developing drought contingency plans which

takes advantage of federal background and

expertise. This guide explains how a region

can develop practical drought preparedness

plans using those methods, while maintaining

the flexibility needed for local, non-federal

decision making.

This guide can be used by anyone concerned

about reducing the vulnerability of a water

system to drought impacts. It is meant 

mainly for regional problems, from quick

reviews of drought vulnerability to long and

involved preparedness efforts. The method 

is suitable for:

! federal and non-federal drought

preparedness planning

! water systems operation during

drought

! regulatory permitting related to

principles, so it can be applied quite 

The main body of this guide explains a

drought preparedness process in seven

sequential, iterative steps. None of the steps

should be skipped, but the amount of time 

and money spent on each step depends on 

the particular situation in a region and how

much information is already available.

The annexes to this report address the most

common issues raised during the case studies

in each of several professional areas. The

annexes are not meant to be summaries of

these subjects, but in some cases (such as the

annex on alternative dispute resolution) a 

brief overview of the subject was also

provided.

There are five characteristic situations which

call for the use of this method:

! If you just don’t know whether your

community or your region is well 
INTRODUCTION 3 

WHAT ARE THESE METHODS BASED ON?

prepared for a severe drought. It is ! If you are involved in any water

unusual for one person to be responsible for

regional drought preparedness, so it may be

necessary to ask several people if (and why)

they are confident that the region is well

prepared. This guide can be used to develop

an inexpensive preliminary estimate of 

drought vulnerability.

! If you know there is a drought plan, but

you don’t know if it is adequate. Only a the rest of the hydrologic spectrum and to

little more than half the states have drought strategic planning.

preparedness plans. About half of the

country’s urban water suppliers have drought

contingency plans, but in 1988, fewer than

30% of the urban water utilities had any kind

of quantitative data to support decision The methods described in this guide are 

making during droughts. In many cases, the based on longstanding, well accepted water

plans were based on little research and resources planning principles, updated and

unrealistic expectations of consumer

responses.

! If you are in the process of developing a

drought preparedness plan. It has become more than one hundred water managers, or

more commonplace to require drought plans consultants, and researchers from the Corps

for utilities and reservoirs. The regulations and other federal and state agencies, leading

often require a document which lists the universities, cities, consultants, private

curtailment actions that will be taken when industries, and environmental groups. The

drought indicators reach certain values, the methods described in this guide were tested

water savings expected from these actions, and refined in several case studies

and the coordination with agencies that representing many of the conditions across 

would be initiated. These sorts of “plans” the U.S. A brief comparison of the DPS

offer some benefit and typically require a method to traditional ways of responding to

minimum of public process and staff time. drought is provided in Chapter 2.

The disadvantages of these plans is that they

typically do not establish the real objectives

for water management, nor do they compare

alternative drought plans to find the plan that

best addresses those objectives. The lack of

public process may mean that water users

(especially new users such as recreators) will

be less well prepared and more adversarial

when the drought occurs.

resources planning or in the resolution of

water resources conflicts, or

! If you have been faced with a drought

which raised concerns about the adequacy

of future water supply. The methods of the

National Drought Study are based on water

resources management principles, so most of

what is written in this report is applicable to

tested in the National Study of Water

Management During Drought (1990-1993),

a study led by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers. The study team consisted of 
4 INTRODUCTION
1

WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 5 

The real need is to institutionalize drought management into improved overall water management

systems

- Conclusions from a National Science Foundation Drought Water Management

Workshop, February 1990 (NSF, 1990)

The NSF workshop participants concluded that attempts to understand and address drought

problems will be unsuccessful unless the larger context of which they were an inseparable part is

also understood and addressed. This was also one of the conclusions drawn by the Corps of

Engineers in the first year of the National Drought Study (NDS-1), and the premise upon which

the DPS method was built. This chapter provides a conceptual structure for understanding the

whole into which water management during drought fits, and briefly illustrates linkages between

water management issues.

THE MEANING OF THE WORD

“DROUGHT”

 WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT

meteorological drought (less precipitation 

There are many definitions of drought. The than usual, with “less” sometimes quantified). 

National Drought Study team sought a Others use “drought” to refer to agricultural

definition that was consistent with historic drought (not enough precipitation for crops),

scholarly usage and accepted usage in water or hydrologic drought (less water available

management operations so that water than usual, typically defined statistically in

managers and planners perceptions of this terms of less than normal streamflow). But in

phenomenon could be integrated. water systems that use distant sources of

A community is often asked to make drought may be unrelated to the amount of

sacrifices while a drought continues, and so local rainfall. Because this is a guide to

differences in the operational definition managing water to reduce impacts from

change the answers to important, practical “drought”, the definition used to guide the

questions such as, “should we begin to development of the DPS approach had to

sacrifice now?” and “can we stop sacrificing include social and economic considerations,

now?” The next few paragraphs show the as well as the meteorological. In many 

range of meanings “drought” can have, and cases, the connection between meteorological

then suggests a basis for creating a definition and socioeconomic droughts is obvious. 

which can be used in regional planning. The definition also had to be meaningful to

There are at least 10 meteorological, 4 of water shortages that are not called 

agricultural, 3 hydrologic, and 3

socioeconomic definitions of drought used in

water management literature (NDS-3). Some

authors restrict its use to what others call

water or large reservoirs, declarations of

water supply managers and water system

operators. Finally, there are also some types
6 WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 

FIGURE 1. A GRAPHIC DEFINITION OF DROUGHT

A WATER RESOURCES PLANNER’S

VIEW OF DROUGHT

“droughts.” For example, although many of Water supply planners accept residual risks 

the planning procedures might be the same, of very infrequent droughts because the

most water managers agree that a pipe break environmental, social, or economic costs

or an oil spill, either of which can cause a required to completely eliminate those risks 

severe water deficit, should not be called a is too great.

“drought.” Thus, for the purposes of this 

text, droughts are periods of time when Over the last several decades, water 

natural or managed water systems do not resources planning has become more

provide enough water to meet established

human and environmental uses because of

natural shortfalls in precipitation or

streamflow.

If a system is said to have a safe yield of 

300 million gallons of water a day at 98%

reliability, it means that it can supply 300

million gallons per day (mgd) 98% of the 

time. The other 2% of the time, the water

manager will declare a drought and make

management adjustments until supplies return

to normal. Water supply planners can make

adjustments so that drought impacts will be

less severe and less frequent over time. 

sophisticated in response to greater public

concern about the environment, recreation, 

and the integrity and effectiveness of

government. Consequently, more

sophisticated procedures for estimating

impacts, evaluating alternatives, listening to

and informing the public, and making 

tradeoffs among dissimilar impacts have been

developed and tested. Much of this work is

captured in the series of summary reports on

federal water resources planning and

evaluation: Proposed Practices for Economic

Analysis of River Basin Projects (May 1950,

revised in May 1958 and referred to as “The

Green Book”), Senate Document 97 (1962), 

Principles and Standards for Planning Water

and Related Land Resources (the P&S) 

(1973) and Economic and Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water and

Related Land Resources Implementation
WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 7 

A WATER MANAGER’S

VIEW OF DROUGHT

THE RULES FOR MAKING DECISIONS,

INCLUDING DECISIONS ABOUT WATER

MANAGEMENT DURING DROUGHT

Studies (the P&G) (1983). (See Annex A for When a drought occurs, water managers will

a discussion of these reports). face the same question planners addressed in

Figure 1 represents water use as a single produces the most desirable level and

line, suggesting that if a new reservoir were allocation of beneficial effects?

built, increasing supply, the frequency and Like the long term planner, the real time

severity of future drought impacts would be manager will have to listen to and inform the

reduced. In practice, however, new public, deal with other governments, 

reservoirs often bring new recreational uses agencies, and private organizations, and

that become firmly established when confront criticism. And like the planner, the

precipitation and streamflow are normal. manager will deal with risk and uncertainty

When a drought does occur, planners may surrounding the consequences of any 

find that those who have a stake in lake proposed action. 

recreation will resist drawing the reservoir

down. The new uses bring new benefits, but A principal finding of the National Drought

add to the complexity of drought response. Study was that as a rule, water management

The definition of drought for short-term assure efficiency and equity in the allocation

management is consistent with the written and use of water and related land resources.

definition on page 6 and Figure 1, but more

concrete. It can be more precise because

current stores of surface and groundwater 

and current use patterns can be determined

fairly accurately. It must be more specific

because coordinated responses to drought

require a common view of whether the Simplifying assumptions make it easier to 

region is in a drought, how bad the drought deal with things in the abstract. So long as 

is, and how long it is likely to last. Initiating the domain of the problem area is restricted,

drought responses too early, too late, or the loss of realism may not be important. 

unnecessarily can be costly. Because an For example, so long as the surveyed piece 

official drought declaration may be necessary of the earth’s surface is small enough, it 

to initiate some response measures, water makes more sense for surveyors to disregard

managers typically declare the time the the curvature of the earth’s surface when 

drought started and ended. they measure elevations. The error induced

Integration. A simple and meaningful

criticism of most plans for drought response 

is that they do not resemble real responses to

droughts; the furor caused by droughts is

rarely foreshadowed in drought planning

(NDS-1, NDS-5).

the design of the water system: which plan

during drought has not benefited much from

the research, development and testing that 

has improved strategic water resources

planning over the past four decades, despite

the fact that practioners in both fields try to

by this simplification is unacceptable when

larger pieces of real estate are traversed, so a

more complicated (and realistic) view of the

world is necessary.

As long as water conditions are close enough

to average, it makes sense for water 

managers to assume that water allocation and
8 WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 

use are established by operating policies. collective choice level. An example of such 

But severe droughts can cause significant a rule change would be an interagency

changes in water allocations and impacts, agreement on a new drought response plan, 

often years or decades after operating or Federal legislative and executive actions 

policies have been set. The premise of this to construct a water project. Collective

introduction, supported by the testimony of choice rules can be changed only at the

water managers who have gone through constitutional level. The U.S. Constitution is

severe droughts, is that drought plans that a good example of such a rule set. It

disregard this complexity will not be establishes fundamental concepts regarding 

effective during a drought. the right of governments to manage water, 

Decisions made about water during drought between the federal government and the 

are affected by how decisions are made states.

under normal circumstances. This includes

how concerns about water use, quality and A team developing a plan to improve the

supply are balanced, what water sources are regional response to future droughts works at

used, and how the infrastructure for treating, the collective choice level to define the

storing and distributing water is financed and operational rules for water management 

maintained. Those water related decisions during future droughts. The team’s work is

are in turn affected by the way decisions are authorized and funded under broad

made about governance, commerce, and constitutional level rules about the

personal behavior. Even these overarching responsibility and power to manage water. 

decision processes can have an obvious

relevance to drought issues, such as The linkage of operating rules to higher level

consumer response to demand management rules illustrates why elected officials are

measures, jurisdiction on water allocation ultimately held responsible by citizens who

decisions, and the use of water markets. suffer the impacts of drought. Water

A useful structure for the rules of decision experience this linkage through increased

making has been proposed (Ostrum, 1977) political interest in their decisions. The

and used in the study of water management, methods developed during the National

including the National Drought Study (94- Drought Study help elected officials and

NDS-13). In this structure, water agency staff share information before 

management decisions are formed according drought, when both groups are under less

to three levels of rules: operational, pressure and have more time to develop 

collective choice, and constitutional. better ideas.

Physical characteristics, such as reservoir

capacity, are included as part of “scope Many social scientists refer to the sets of 

rules” that define the physical domain of the rules for making rational decisions as

decision making. Water managers make day institutions (not to be confused with another,

to day decisions according to operational related meaning of the word, organizations).

rule. Operational rules are changed from Institutional analysis is the study of these 

time to time to reflect changed rule sets and their consequences on the

circumstances, such as the growth in attainment of human goals. 

population, or new use for water. These

changes in operational rules are made at the

and the division of that responsibility 

managers who have gone through droughts
WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 9 

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

FOR MANAGING WATER OTHER COMMON CONCEPTS

IN WATER MANAGEMENT

The phrase “institutional study” has a traditional economic theory, which discounts

narrower common usage in the water the value of goods received in the future 

resources field. It typically refers to efforts (Lee, 1992).

that analyze whether changes in collective

choice rules (such as agency jurisdiction and Multiobjective water management is the

mission, interagency coordination, and law) process of making decisions about water 

will allow improvements in water after consideration of the consequences with

management that could not be obtained by respect to these objectives. (Major, 1977).

fine tuning the operational rules. Much of the (Annex A briefly discusses the origins of

criticism of current American water multiobjective water management. Chapter 7

management focuses on institutional discusses how to account for and make

problems (NDS-1, Rogers 1993). tradeoffs between objectives.) These 

Changes in the way water is managed, for water management efforts, such as drought

drought or any other circumstance, can be preparedness studies, while still more 

expressed and analyzed as changes in this specific planning objectives are developed to

structure of rules for making decisions about address regional desires. Regional planning

water. objectives are discussed in more detail in

Goal and objective are often used

synonymously, but the derivation of each Multipurpose water management is not the

word suggests a useful distinction between same as multiobjective water management. 

the two words. “Goal” is derived from a The most common purposes for water

Middle English word gol (“a boundary”). management are navigation, recreation,

Objective is derived from two Latin words, municipal and industrial use, dilution of

ob (“towards”) and jacere (“to throw”). In effluents, instream biological requirements,

their root sense, then, a goal is an ultimate hydropower, irrigation and livestock 

purpose, whereas an objective is something watering, flood damage reduction, and 

aimed or striven for more immediately. The coastal and streambank erosion damage

ultimate goals for managing water are found reduction. Multipurpose refers to structures

in concepts like health and happiness. To or practices involving more than one of these

direct us towards those goals, we define purposes. Integrated water management has

objectives such as greater environmental been used recently in different ways,

quality, economic efficiency, social well sometimes referring to the analysis of water

being, equity, national security, and better supply and demand options together,

international relations. The concept of sometimes to the coordination of water

sustainability is often seen as a direction, quantity and quality options.

rather than a destination. Sustainability

recognizes the importance of environmental A watershed is a geographic area in which 

objectives for long term human (economic) water drains to a common outlet. A river

use of natural resources. It places greater basin can contain many watersheds. 

importance on future economic output than Watershed management and river basin

national objectives become goals for regional

Chapter 4. 
10 WATER MANAGEMENT AND DROUGHT 

management are both based on a desire to Water can be supplied from surface or

manage holistically. However, the potential ground sources. In the physical domain,

difference in scale may make watershed groundwater and surface water are linked. 

management more feasible and the But the institutions for managing surface and

relationship between stakeholders and groundwater are usually different and

management groups more effective. The separate, and that can make it difficult to

term problemshed is a play on words that manage the two sources conjunctively 

reflects the fact that in some cases, the (ACIR, 1991). 

problem area may not be the same as the 

river basin area. Reductions in hydropower,

for example, may affect power users outside

the river basin where the power is produced

because power grids allow utilities to share

power over a wide geographic area. 

The DPS method is based on principles drawn from and consistent with this broader context. 

It is that consistency that makes the method appropriate for water resources planning and

management in general. The next chapter provides an overview of this method.
2

THE DPS METHOD 11 

Bad water management often occurs when facts are confused with values, when means are

confused with ends, and when technical judgments are made by citizens and politicians while 

value judgments are made by scientists and professionals.

- William B. Lord (Water Resources Bulletin,1984)

“In the last twenty years, there has been a proliferation of government reports, scholarly

literature, and popular works favoring changes in water policy. Common themes abound ... they

often observe that broader planning and basin management are preferable to present approaches. 

Lawyers, economists, political scientists, geographers, citizen groups, and government

commissions all have reached remarkably similar conclusions.”

- David Getches (Water Resources Update, Winter 1993)

The DPS method is an embodiment of these common themes. Its strength is not that it includes so

much that is new, but that it makes practical and whole what is well regarded in theory. 

Undergirding the well established planning, evaluation, and implementation steps is the 

innovation of the shared vision model, a method of visualizing future droughts that would have

been impossible before recent advances in personal computers. This chapter describes the DPS

approach in general terms, followed by more detailed explanations of the various steps in

Chapters 3 through 9.

MAJOR FEATURES OF THE DPS METHOD

 THE DPS METHOD

Drought Preparedness Studies: ! are result-oriented. Reports and written

! are joint efforts requiring changes that reduce environmental,

intergovernmental cooperation with those economic, and social impacts from

who have a stake in how water is drought.

allocated and used.

! constitute a more general version of the and expertise from across the country.

planning methods and evaluation 

principles of federal Principles and ! integrate long and short term responses.

Guidelines (P&G) (See Annex A for

more information). The DPS method ! are dynamic, because plans are

accommodates the extensive exercised in regularly conducted virtual

responsibilities of non-federal entities in

drought situations.

plans are by-products of behavioral 

! take advantage of experience, research,

droughts.
12 THE DPS METHOD 

ORGANIZATION OF A DPS

LEVELS OF DETAIL AND COST

Although a DPS is a joint cooperative effort alternative drought response plans in some

between interested parties, it needs a detail. A study of this magnitude would

sponsor(s) to provide funding, and a leader include a detailed shared vision model that

to initiate it. The leader must assure that shows how water would be allocated under 

appropriate state officials, regional agencies, the status quo and under alternative plans. 

and important municipalities are adequately The model would also show how well each

represented on the working group, as well as plan met the criteria established by decision

important industrial, commercial, and public makers. The model would be developed 

interest groups. using existing data (updated where sensitivity

A DPS can be carried out at various levels of would be held. The studies would take from

detail and cost. Funding of $15-$50,000 12-36 months, and would be officially

might suffice for a regional review led by a supported by agreements signed by the study

state water resources agency or partners.

environmental agency, a large urban water

agency, or a council of governments. At this

level, two to four workshops would typically

be held, a preliminary shared vision model

developed (see page 14), with data provided

from readily available sources and from

interviews with stakeholders, researchers and

interest groups in the region.

If the preliminary review suggests that it

would be worthwhile, funding of $100,000-

$500,000 should be sufficient to evaluate

analysis shows that uncertainty in existing 

data translates to significant differences in

management decisions) and interviews with 

all major players. At least four workshops
THE DPS METHOD 13 

1. Build a team and identify problems. (Chapter 3)

2. Develop objectives and metrics for evaluation (Chapter 4)

3. Describe the status quo; that is, what will happen in future droughts if the community does 

nothing more to prepare itself? (Chapter 5)

4. Formulate alternatives to the status quo. (Chapter 6)

5. Evaluate alternatives and develop study team recommendations. (Chapter 7)

6. Institutionalize the plan. (Chapter 8)

7. Exercise and update the plan and use it during droughts. (Chapter 9)

TABLE I. THE SEVEN STEPS OF THE DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS METHOD 

THE SEVEN STEPS

OF THE DPS METHOD

The seven steps are shown in Table I. The of iterations increase, the number of

approach is derived from federal planning alternatives decreases, the level of plan detail

principles, but the DPS method adds two should increase, and the scrutiny of the

steps to the P&G planning and evaluation evaluation process should become more

process, reflecting the importance of the non- intense.

federal role and the predominance of nonstructural solutions in water management Iteration should be used to husband study

during drought. resources. For example, by delaying

The federal process has one principal a little is done on plan formulation and

objective - to reasonably maximize net evaluation, a study team can develop a better

national economic development benefits sense of where details about the status quo 

consistent with protecting the nation’s are likely to make a difference in study

environment. In Step 2 of the DPS method, recommendations. Without this iteration, a

the relevant objectives are developed as part hydrologist might be tempted to recreate the

of the study. Step 7 recognizes that entire period of historic flows; but if

solutions requiring coordinated actions agreement is reached upon use of two past

sometime in the future will not work unless droughts as target droughts, with an assumed

they are exercised and updated occasionally. frequency, planning can proceed on that 

The first five steps to drought preparedness

are performed iteratively, that is, the Probably the most common planning mistake

sequence of steps is repeated as more is to skip the development of planning

information becomes available for evaluation. objectives and evaluation criteria (Step 2) 

It is not unusual for new planning objectives

to be added, or existing objectives revised,

after the DPS team more clearly understands

the extent of the problems. As the number 

development of details on the status quo until

basis.
14 THE DPS METHOD 

COMPUTER MODEL BUILDING AND

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

and start by examining possible alternative policies. It has become more and more

solutions (Steps 4 and 5). In theory, it difficult for water managers, and nearly

seems obvious that a drought preparedness impossible for stakeholders to synthesize the

study can not be managed for success if the information generated for an entire water

stakeholders have not agreed what success is. system and use it to make decisions.

In practice, though, working groups usually

assume that everyone understands what the There is a gap between the way people 

objectives are, and that it would be a waste 

of valuable time to articulate and debate

them. These “practical” decisions fly in the

face of decades of planning experience. 

Without clearly stated planning objectives 

and evaluation criteria, effective decisions on

the allocation of study funds and time can

only be accidental, and conflicts over 

differing aims cannot be resolved efficiently.

Projections of how scarce water will be

allocated to a variety of stakeholders clearly

require mathematical computations. Ideally,

these calculations would accurately reflect all

the things that would happen during a

drought, and at the same time be easily

understood by water use groups. 

This goal had become more and more elusive

because of three trends in water 

management:

! New water uses and environmental

concerns have made multiobjective,

multipurpose analyses more complex. 

! There are more data and the complexity of

data analysis is increasing. 

! There is a general trend to broader public

participation in water management. 

The compounding of these trends has greatly

increased the difficulty in making timely and

informed changes in water management

make decisions and the information

specialized water models can produce. The

DPS's used new computer software to 

create “shared vision models” that bridge

that gap.

The National Drought Study used a new

method of building computer models of 

water systems to accomplish this goal. The

“black box” computer models typically used

in the past were supplemented with new,

site-specific planning models created by

individuals representing the Corps, local 

water supply agencies, water managers, and

stakeholders who would be impacted by the

plans. These models captured the expertise

and experience of people in the region and

became a shared vision upon which to base

negotiation.

This integration of planning and modeling

differs significantly from previous 

approaches and has only recently been made

possible by extraordinary advances in

computer hardware and software. In the 

past, computer models used in water

resources planning were created by

individuals specially trained in computer

programming. Today, because of the

availability and power of personal computers

and new simulation software, more people

can become involved in building models and

the models can be more easily understood by

all stakeholders.

The computer software used in these efforts

can be described as a user-friendly, graphical

simulation tool. This software makes use of

icons to represent simple, physical objects or
THE DPS METHOD 15 

GROUP PROCESSES

concepts. The model builder selects from a and backgrounds. In recent years, processes

palette of icons to describe the system, such have been developed that (when used

as reservoirs, streams, and uses. After the properly) can make this interaction much

basic system configuration is defined, the more efficient.

modeler defines system operating policies 

and provides site specific information such There will be several workshops held in the

as streamflows, demands, and economic and course of even a simple DPS. There are 

environmental relationships. many good books offering suggestions on

The specific software used to implement summary of some of that advice that is

water resource system models developed in directly applicable to water management

the National Drought Study is STELLA II®. workshops.

STELLA II® is most simply described as a

visual spreadsheet for systems analysis where Agendas should be established in advance of

the process being modeled can be pictured as meetings and workshops. If a group meets

a process rather than equations. STELLA regularly, development of the agenda 

II® was selected over other available for the following meeting can be the last task

software because of its unique combination of the current meeting. Each agenda item

of simplicity, power, and cost-effectiveness. should have a set time and discussion leader.

Because the new software is so user-friendly, Facilitators are useful in most meetings and

members of the working group and should be used in all workshops. Because

stakeholders can participate in the facilitation requires training, and good

development and testing of the model, and in communication and interpersonal skills, and

its application to estimating the effect of because the facilitator should not participate

various alternative plans considered. This in the substance of the discussion, it is 

process builds confidence in the model usually better to hire a professional facilitator

results (see Annex C for more information). than to ask for volunteers from within the

In the National Drought Study experience, meeting effective. 

this collaboration gave team members a

chance to appreciate and understand each Facilitators make sure that the purpose of

others perspectives. Concepts that had been each agenda item is fulfilled; help the group

vaguely understood such as safe yield and to manage their meeting time; manage

primary water right were explained and dominant and passive participants; 

illustrated in models, so that non-experts clarify miscommunication among meeting

could understand the implications these participants; and assure that necessary 

concepts carried for their concerns. follow-up actions are assigned to a

The conduct of a DPS requires the successful groups led by a recorder who simply lists

interaction of people with different values 

how to run effective workshops. Here is a

group. The facilitator's job is to make the

responsible party.

Brainstorming is a process which has been

used extensively in value engineering and

other areas where innovative alternatives 

must be found. It is best done in small 
16 THE DPS METHOD 

every idea that is offered by any member of experts to use their knowledge to explain 

the group. why some ideas should not be studied 

The key to successful brainstorming is to

withhold criticism until the group has A Delphi process can accomplish some of 

exhausted its creativity. This can be very the same purposes over a longer period of

difficult, especially when water experts time, but without a physical meeting. In a

brainstorm with stakeholders, because many Delphi process, experts are asked to respond

of the ideas will have technical flaws or will to a series of questionnaires about problems

be unresponsive to the planning objectives. or solutions. A central analyst reviews their

Encouraging all participants to freely offer if needed to clarify or resolve disputes 

solutions achieves many ends: it can allay among the experts, or to address new issues

fears that possible solutions have been suggested by the previous round of responses

overlooked; provide the insight of a fresh (Delli Priscoli, 1986).

perspective to an expert; force the

examination of good ideas that experts know Chapter 7 explains how teams can screen a

have powerful foes; or allow interesting, but long initial list of alternatives to produce a

ultimately unsuitable ideas to be raised and manageable number for more detailed

rejected in an equitable and public manner. analysis.

After the uncritical brainstorming, The remaining alternatives can then be

participants should eliminate redundant ideas, organized if that serves a purpose. The use 

and then use preliminary screening criteria to of 81⁄2”× 11" paper rather than flip charts

reduce the number of alternatives. allows participants to group ideas before

Brainstorming can be used to assemble a having to agree on category names.

collective response better than the best ideas

of any participant. But if none of the Breakout sessions. Research and experience

participants know much about a subject, the show that it is very difficult for groups of

collective answer will also be uninformed. more than a dozen or so people to work

Unfortunately, it has become much more effectively on an intellectual product. An

common to see brainstorming used in this hour provides only 5 minutes of 

way. Brainstorming with agency staff alone verbalization each to 12 people! Larger

is not sufficient to identify stakeholders’ groups are acceptable if individual

needs. Especially during the first step of the contributions are less important, in such

DPS process, brainstorming with activities as listening to a speaker or voting.

stakeholders is a valuable supplement to a

review of previous reports on water 

resources problems in the basin. 

Brainstorming with stakeholders alone will

not produce solutions that are technically

adequate. During the fourth step of the DPS

process, stakeholders should be encouraged 

to express their ideas for alternatives, but the

preliminary screening process should allow

further.

answers, then develops another questionnaire
3

STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 17

Decision making should include all affected interest groups.

- Long's Peak Working Group (America's Waters: A New Era of Sustainability, 1992)

Efforts to deal with water geographically typically encounter strong resistance from

bureaucracies that are functionally organized for different purposes.

- Peter Rogers (America's Water; 1993)

There is a natural, physical integration of water problems in a river basin; the challenge is to

assemble a problem solving team that can work with a corresponding wholeness. The first

step in the DPS method was designed to overcome two common shortcomings in water

management: the separation between stakeholders and the problem solving process, and the

subdivision of natural resources management by limited agency missions. Each problem will

affect a group of stakeholders and be managed by one or more agencies. This chapter

explains how to assemble such a team.

 BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS

The first step in the DPS method is to problems: the stakeholders that will be hurt 

assemble a planning team and determine the by drought; the agencies that have will make

nature of drought problems the region faces. decisions related to the drought; the 

The discussions of study process in this and advocates whose concerns are elevated by

other chapters assumes that there is a lead drought; and the independent experts whose

agency (see Chapter 2) that invites life studies are applicable to drought.

participation on a DPS team and facilitates 

an initial problem identification workshop. In a DPS, water managers and stakeholders

DPS's are meant to produce behavioral develop solutions. Compared to the more

changes that will reduce regional common approach in which water managers

vulnerability to drought. One of the most develop plans and then present them to

imposing roadblocks to such action is the stakeholders in public meetings, this

fragmentation of responsibility caused by the collaborative approach:

mismatch between political and hydrologic

boundaries and between agency missions and ! harnesses the knowledge and creativity of

water resources problems. stakeholders near the beginning of

Rarely will there be one agency or political

entity that can tackle these problems alone ! makes it more likely that stakeholders 

(See Chapter 1). The DPS team will be a can take actions unilaterally to reduce

new entity whose makeup reflects the set of their drought vulnerability;

work together to specify problems and 

problem solving efforts;
18 STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 

MAKEUP OF THE TEAM STARTING THE DPS

! builds broader, deeper stakeholder collaboration requires advocates to assume

support for water management plans. some responsibility for achieving regional

Water managers do not surrender their information and power. Annex B 

responsibility or authority because of this summarizes the results of a study by the U.S.

collaboration. In fact, the water management Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

decisions are less likely to be challenged if Relations (ACIR) on methods of effecting

managers develop public understanding, better cooperation among agencies, elected

input, and support prior to the drought. officials, and advocacy groups.

The planning team should include four types The DPS will typically begin when a convening

of people: stakeholders, water managers, agency writes to the heads of other agencies

advocacy groups, and independent experts. and organizations representing the four types

Depending on the problems involved, team of participants and invites them to send

members of each of the four types should be representatives to a workshop. At the

selected to represent national, regional, or workshop, the convening agency should

local interests, and may be drawn from the facilitate the initial effort at defining the range

private as well the public sector. Water and severity of drought problems facing the

managers make or implement decisions. region. Participants at this workshop should

They include agency staff involved in also consider who is not at the workshop but

planning, operation, and regulation, and should be involved in the study.

elected officials ultimately responsible to

citizens for drought responses. It is essential that decision makers make a

A conscious effort should be made to extreme cases, when a collaborative study is an

involve those with long term management alternative to litigation, the decision makers'

responsibility and oversight, even if their commitment to act according to the findings of

particular interest is not drought. Because of the study should be formally established at the

the integrated nature of a DPS, its beginning of the study. Less formal

recommendations may need to be woven into commitments are acceptable, but the same

processes and cultures beyond drought concept applies: stakeholders have no reason

management. Examples include legislative to participate in a process that will change

aides with water policy oversight, water nothing. The DPS should be launched with

supply and wastewater planners, and letters of support from the decision makers. 

regulatory staff.

Advocacy groups support positions on makers must be manifest at least through the

particular issues such as protection of the commitment of agency staff time. The goal of

environment or growth management. The this collaboration should be an agreement by

DPS method encourages participation of agencies and stakeholders to manage water

diverse interests from the beginning, in order according to the findings of the study.

to reduce the chance of litigation that has

characterized past studies. Such a

goals, and requires agencies to share

commitment to empower the DPS process. In

During the study, the support of decision
STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 19

FINDING STAKEHOLDERS

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF

BROAD INVOLVEMENT

CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE

Unless they have recently been personally increases that risk by adding more participants.

involved in a drought, stakeholders are often

unaware of their vulnerability and will not The methods described below are designed to

make individual preparations to reduce their allow broad representation and effectiveness.

vulnerability. Stakeholders competing for

water often make their first contact with 

water managers and competing stakeholders

during drought, when they are most 

threatened by drought impacts. The DPS teams used a simple approach called

Table V lists the primary water management between the effectiveness of small teams and

purposes likely to be affected by drought. It the representativeness of large teams. This

can be used as a checklist for identifying approach is built on the common themes in

drought problems and building a study team. three very different examples of organizational

Broadening study participation may also pose individuals involved in a DPS can be described

some problems: as belonging to one of three circles, A

! money spent on public involvement will through C has broader representation but less

not be available for technical studies. personal involvement. If one were to develop

! the “public” that gets involved in planning Drought Study, Circle A managed the study

may be self-selected and unrepresentative of and did most of the actual work. Circle A

the public that will be affected by drought. included the Corps study leader, as well as 2 to

! if public representatives are actually several times a week, managed contracts,

involved in the study process (as opposed to arranged meetings of larger groups, built

just expressing problems and goals in models, did research, and wrote letters, papers,

workshops or surveys), then additional and reports.

efforts may be required to provide technical

training and to coordinate the work of public Circle B includes Circle A as well as one

task forces. representative for each major stakeholder

! the misapplication of the techniques of probably need to meet a few times a year.

group process (see page 16) can result in the They may review and revise draft papers from

use of stakeholder opinions on issues that Circle A.

should be addressed by experts.

! all group processes can be slowed or

stopped by recalcitrant or distrustful

participants, and broader citizen participation

“circles of influence” to help strike a balance

effectiveness (none water related) and is

consistent with research on how people work

together well. (For more information, see

Annex J).

Although there is no formal “membership”,

through C. Each successive circle from A

a composite of the four DPS’s of the National

4 others from outside the Corps. They spoke

group (such as industrial users). Circle B will
20 STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 

FIGURE 2. CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE

THE PROBLEMS

The ideal circle B participant will be active 

in professional or issues oriented

organizations. They would also be trusted 

and respected by others whose interests he or

she represents. The activity of the 

participant outside the DPS is important

because it takes advantage of existing

channels of communication. And if the 

Circle B participant was trusted and

respected, stakeholders outside Circle B

were more willing to support the study

despite their decision to be less directly

involved in the study.

Circle C included a representative from each

major stakeholder, each management agency,

and each advocacy group. Circle C 

numbered from 20 to 60, and met twice a 

year in fairly formal workshop settings.

Regional decision makers (agency heads and

elected officials) constituted a fourth circle,

“D”. They were involved formally at the

beginning and end of the DPS’s, and were 

kept informed during the study through their

study representatives.

Every stakeholder and decision maker 

outside Circle A was connected to “A” in an

identifiable chain. These connections were

usually through common work places,

related work groups, or professional

organizations. The connections were based on

a combination of trust and communication. 

Individuals who wanted more influence or

oversight were free to move into the central

circles if they were able to contribute more

time to study tasks. 

When existing organizations are too

restrictive to deal with water issues in a

holistic way, circles of influence can create

new ways for people to interact, without

destroying the old organizations or their

responsibilities and advantages.

Circles of influence supplement, but do not

replace procedures that require consultation

with other agencies or public hearings.

Existing reports written by researchers and

management, data and regulatory agencies

should be used as the basis for problem

identification. Participants at the first

workshop should describe past impacts and the

efforts to mitigate those impacts, addressing

the following questions:

! What problems have they experienced in

the past?

! What efforts to prepare for future droughts

are they aware of?

! What changes in hydrology or water use

since the last drought have affected the region's

vulnerability to drought? 

! Are they still vulnerable individually?

! Is the region still vulnerable?

! Can the DPS help or be helped by other

ongoing work?
STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 21

! How can regional vulnerability be reduced droughts, and if they feel that the region as a

without their personal commitment? whole is prepared. If the general consensus is

! What benefits could the region realize if must ask if there is an organized effort outside

its vulnerability to drought were reduced? the DPS to address these problems. There

! What is the appropriate geographic scope? long range water supply studies, federal

The starting point should be the river basin feasibility or reservoir reallocation studies,

or watershed. If problems exist and can be legislative reviews of existing water laws and

managed in a portion of the basin, then the regulations, or urban planning studies are

study should focus its attention there. If underway. Even if efforts outside the DPS do

there are out of basin diversions, or if not address drought issues directly, there may

hydropower produced within the basin is be an opportunity to share data, computer

used elsewhere, then the team may decide to models, and even political support.

broaden the study area. None of this may be

apparent at the first workshop, but as the Finally, the participants should ask themselves

study progresses, the team should revisit this whether these problems will be addressed

question to assure that study efforts are without their personal commitment for making

explicitly shaped to the problems. the DPS successful.

A simple table such as Table II can be Moreover, because history has shown that

constructed at this first workshop to describe concerns about drought dissipate soon after

the participants' best sense of how vulnerable droughts are over, participants must also

they are to mild, severe, and very severe realize that unless they become advocates for

drought. change, the change will not occur.

The second column in Table II describes Once the basic team structure has been set up

how the various groups believe they would and the major problems identified, the next

be affected by a non-drought water shortage. 

Participants should also consider taking

advantage of the opportunities provided by 

the DPS to manage water shortages caused 

by polluting spills, earthquakes, flooded 

water treatment plants, and aqueduct breaks. 

Responses to these emergencies often require

collaboration among the same agencies

involved in drought management. If

emergency procedures are already in place,

then some of the coordination mechanisms 

can be used for the drought study. If

emergency plans are inadequate, participants

may decide to improve them during the DPS. 

Each participant should be asked whether the

group they represent is prepared for future

that there are serious problems, then the group

may be an opportunity for mutual benefit if
22 STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 

Incident 6

Group 9

Emergency: Oil

Spill

Moderate

Drought

Drought of

Record

Worse Than

Record Drought

Navigation

Industry

Short term

impact.

No problem Slight to 

moderate

reduction in

service

Moderate to

severe reduction

in service

Wastewater

Treatment

Agency

Shutdown Failure to meet

effluent

standards

Failure to meet

effluent

standards

Failure to meet

effluent

standards

Environmental

Groups

Wildfowl, fish

kills

Concern about

low levels of

dissolved 

oxygen

Demands for

reservoir releases 

Demands for

reservoir releases

Flat Water

Recreation

Industry

Little effect No problem Financial

difficulties,

resistance to

releases

Bankruptcies

White Water

Recreation

Industry

Long and short

term declines in

business

Decline in

business

Some

bankruptcies

Many

bankruptcies,

long term loss of

customers

Domestic Water

Users

Short term crisis Voluntary

curtailment 

Mandatory

curtailment

Severe, 

mandatory

curtailment

City Water

Supply Agency

Criticized

because of no

plan

Little impact Some public

criticism

Severe public

criticism

Electric Power

Industry

Little effect Cost of 

electricity may

increase.

Cost of

electricity will

increase.

Cost of

electricity will

increase,

brownouts will

be necessary

TABLE II. THE FIRST WORKSHOP: EXPERTS’ UNQUANTIFIED SPECULATION ABOUT EXPECTED 

IMPACTS FROM FUTURE DROUGHTS
STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 23

Circle 6

Categories 9

A B - includes A,

adds:

C - includes B,

adds:

D: Decision

Makers

Agencies Corps, City and

State Water

Department 

Staff

State Fisheries

staff

Other Corps,

State offices, 

city water

departments.

Mayor,

Governor, Chief

of Engineers or

authorized

designate

Users Hydropower

industry staffer

One 

professional

from each

purpose

(e.g., the

Hydropower

Industry)

Technical

representatives

from all 

corporate users

CEO’s,

Electorate

Advocates Professional

citizen

representative

Environmental

Group

representative

One

representative

from all relevant

environmental

groups

Experts University:

Hydrologist/

Environmental

Engineer/

Resource

Economist

Political

scientists,

engineers

Legislators may occasionally be Circle D decision makers if new laws are required to effect reduced

drought impacts. More universally, though, they are an important medium through which the goals

for managing water are articulated; they are directly responsible to the public. While they may not

be included in a circle, their views on the appropriate goals for a drought response plan can be

solicited in an issues study (see page B-3.)

TABLE III. THE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT WORK IN EACH OF THE CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE 

step is to define what the team is trying to do The composition of the team may change as

in measurable terms. As the preparedness well, with some individuals comfortable with 

effort progresses, though, the problems may a smaller role, while others decide to do more

be restated (new problems discovered, other work and secure more influence in an inner

problems de-emphasized). circle.
24 STEP 1: BUILD A TEAM, IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 
4

STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 25 

The success of drought response plans should be measured in terms of the minimization and

equitable redistribution of the impacts of shortages, as opposed to the shortages themselves,

but there is much to be learned about the best ways of accomplishing that.

Lessons Learned from the California Drought (1987-1992) (NDS-5)

A successful DPS team will reduce drought impacts through the implementation of their

recommended measures. But what makes one plan better than another? And what criteria

will those who must approve the plan demand that it meet? Until the DPS team identifies the

criteria that define a successful study, they cannot manage to succeed. This chapter explains

how DPS teams can use five kinds of objectives and measures.

MANAGEMENT DECISION CRITERIA

 OBJECTIVES AND METRICS

The DPS team should identify and articulate No matter how well the DPS 

management guidelines in five categories: recommendations work on paper, they will 

! decision criteria that define broad goals and implemented. As part of the conscious

and must be satisfied for the DPS effort to improve their chance of

recommendations to be implemented; implementation, DPS teams should identify

! planning objectives that spell out how and recommendations and what criteria they will

when the DPS team hopes to affect specific use in making that decision.

water uses;

! constraints that specify what are water projects are told what the criterion is:

undesirable, prohibited, or physically they are directed to recommend the plan that

impossible outputs from the DPS; reasonably maximizes net National Economic

! performance measures of the water environmental constraints. The evaluation of

system, and alternatives in federal studies is designed to

! effects of alternatives on the environment,

the economy, and social well being. But non-federal decision makers will use 

not reduce impacts unless they are approved

who will need to approve their

Planners studying the feasibility of federal

Development (NED) benefits while meeting

address that criterion.

other criteria. In some cases, the criteria will

be very difficult to determine. For example, 
26 STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

GOALS AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES

in deciding how early to declare a drought, To spell out specifically what the community

different decision makers may favor different hopes to achieve by preparing for drought, 

tradeoffs between the risk of catastrophe and the DPS team must identify drought related

the frequency of inconvenience. problems to be solved and opportunities that

Some criteria will not be acknowledged or

shared with the DPS team; they may 

constitute a hidden agenda or may be 

difficult to articulate. 

The difficulty of defining all of these criteria

does not diminish the need to address those

that decision makers are willing to share with

the DPS team. Determining the criteria that

elected officials will use may be especially

difficult for agency staff. In two of the

National Drought Study DPS’s (the James is paradoxically the most important and

River and the Cedar and Green River),

political scientists were hired to identify and

interview the political and agency leaders 

that would ultimately have to approve (or

veto) plans developed by the DPS’s. The

interviewers were well informed on the DPS

planning, modelling, and evaluation process,

enabling them to share information about the

DPS with the elected officials. The 

interviews and subsequent summary reports

helped to close the perspective gap between

agency staff and elected officials. 

The goals of a DPS will probably change 

only in degree from place to place; 

inevitably, people will be concerned about

economic efficiency, environmental quality,

and fairness. (See page 9 for a discussion of

the difference between goals and objectives). 

could be realized. The team will develop

regional planning objectives related to those

problems and opportunities. Examples of

problems and planning objectives are shown 

in Table V.

A planning objective is a concise, formally

structured statement which explains how and

when a study will try to affect a specific 

water use in a specific place.

Developing good planning objectives early 

most often ignored step in the planning

process. How can a team manage to

achieve objectives if they have not agreed 

on what those objectives are?

Planning objectives will often conflict with

one another because they reflect the

competition for water. Although objectives

should be quantifiable, so improvement can

be measured, a specific numerical goal 

should not be specified as part of the

objective. Doing so implies that conflicting

objectives must be sacrificed until that level 

is met. The degree to which each objective 

is met must be determined by the evaluation

process in which each plan’s economic,

social, and environmental outputs are

compared.
STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 27 

Describe the problems in a sentence or two. During a recent drought, the

number of whitewater rafting

days was severely restricted,

with millions of dollars in lost

regional revenue.

Use a verb or action phrase which expresses what 

the team is trying to do (increase, enhance, reduce,

mitigate, etc.) regarding a resource (water withdrawal,

instream flows, etc.) in the context of the perceived

value of the resource (M&I uses, fish habitat, etc.). 

increase the number of days 

of whitewater rafting

Add to that clause (verb, resource and context), the

geographic area of concern (in the lower James

Basin).

between Ogle Point and

Deadman’s Whirlpool

Finally, say whether this is a dynamic or static change. 

If demand is not expected to change in the future, then 

the problem strikes whenever a meteorological drought

occurs. But if demand is increasing, or becoming 

more complex, then the problem may occur more 

often or to a greater degree in the future. The former

condition can often be remedied completely with a

tactical drought contingency plan. The latter may be

better addressed in strategic planning because demand 

is outgrowing the structures, institutions and laws 

which were once adequate.

during droughts would be 

static; if conditions were

expected to change for better 

or worse, then that should be

stated as part of the objective:

during droughts until the

Oglethorpe water supply 

project is completed 

Verbs commonly used in the action phrase include: advance, compensate for, conserve,

contribute to, control, create, destroy, develop, eliminate, enforce, enhance, establish, 

exchange, improve, maintain, manage, minimize, mitigate, preserve, produce, promote, 

protect, provide, reclaim, reconstruct, recover, recreate, rectify, reduce, rehabilitate, repair,

replace, restore, retire, stabilize, or substitute.

TABLE IV. WRITING A PLANNING OBJECTIVE.
28 STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

Kanawha River Basin DPS Planning Objectives

Problems: During a drought ... Planning Objectives

1. Whitewater rafting on the Gauley River is

restricted.

1. Increase the reliability and value of the 

Gauley River whitewater rafting experience 

during drought conditions.

2. Corps reservoirs are drawndown to meet

downstream water needs. In-lake recreation 

suffers when drawdown is significant.

2. Increase reliability of the recreational

opportunities on lakes in the Kanawha River 

basin during drought.

3. Normal navigation pools could be difficult to

maintain resulting in disruptions to navigation

traffic.

3. Maintain navigation on the Kanawha River

during drought.

4. Flows in the Kanawha River could decrease 

such that losses to hydropower generation at the 

3 Corps of Engineers lock and dam projects 

could occur.

4. Maximize hydropower generation in the

Kanawha River basin during drought.

TABLE V. PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR A TYPICAL DPS

Examples of things which are not planning objectives:

! To increase economic benefits (this is a ! Reduce groundings in the channel is too

broad goal at the regional level, and cuts narrow; this could be achieved by 

across several objectives - see Chapter 1 banning navigation. The objective could

for a discussion of goals and objectives). be to improve navigation between (point

! Build a desalting plant (This is a means,

not an objective). ! Maintain instream flows between river

! Eliminate water supply shortfalls a constraint, rather than an objective. 

(Measures should be “sized” after But a complementary objective may be

consideration of their costs). more useful; a team may find a way to

! Assess the impacts of droughts (This is a between river miles 300 and 305 during

study procedure, not an end in itself.) droughts other than enforcing a minimum

A and B) during drought.

miles 300 and 305 at 800 cfs or above is

enhance water quality fish habitat

flow at all times.
STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 29 

CONSTRAINTS PERFORMANCE MEASURES

EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Constraints express what may not be done statistical measures of the performance of the

under existing institutions. Typical water system relative to the needs of the 

constraints include requirements to maintain user. The development of these measures is

a specific rate of instream flow, or to satisfy essentially a technical assignment, but the

laws regarding priorities in the right to use acceptance and relevance of performance

water. Although not generally characterized measures can be confirmed in workshops and

as planning constraints, the physical stakeholder interviews. Examples of

limitations of storage and transmission performance measures are shown on 

facilities are conceptually no different from Table VI.

legal constraints. Constraints that prohibit

certain alternatives are antithetical to the

concept of multiobjective evaluation, and 

DPS teams should consider challenging them 

if they stand in the way of meeting Performance measures do not provide a basis

objectives. There will be an additional for tradeoffs among conflicting objectives. 

burden of proof, however, imposed on a DPS For example, reducing the frequency of

team that recommends a plan that violates navigation restrictions through increased

constraints that constitute clearly stated, releases from a reservoir may increase the

publicly resolved decisions. amount of time boat ramps around the

Planning objectives and constraints are used: water. To what degree should each be

! as screening criteria in the initial

evaluation of alternatives. Plans that In a multiobjective analysis, the effects of the

address only some of the objectives or loss of each activity on the basic objectives

fail to meet constraints may be (regional goals) for managing water are

eliminated or force a reformulation of the estimated. The most commonly considered

objectives. objectives are economic efficiency,

! as management criteria used in deciding equity. The usefulness of this approach is

how to allocate study resources among most obvious when the effects of the

geographical and topical areas. alternatives accrue against only one 

! as a basis for identifying quantifiable differences between preserving navigation 

measures of system performance. For and recreation were economic, then it would

example, the number of days when flows make sense to balance the level of navigation

are above 1200 cfs and number of days and recreation to maximize economic 

with flows above 800 cfs might be useful benefits. Chapter 7 discusses ways of

measures of the degree to which the informing the negotiation of multiobjective

objective “increase the number of tradeoffs.

whitewater rafting days during drought” 

is met.

The study team should also develop 

perimeter of the reservoir are out of the 

sacrificed? 

environmental quality, social well being and

objective. If, in the example above, the only
30 STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

Water Use

Category

Typical Performance Measure

Municipal Frequency of failure to meet unconstrained demand. 

Industrial Frequency and duration of supply failures.

Navigation Frequency and duration of channel closing or imposition of light

loading requirement.

Lake Recreation Frequency and duration that boat ramps are out of the water.

River Recreation Frequency and duration of depths or flows too low for recreation.

Hydropower Power produced, or frequency of failure to meet minimum levels of

production.

Fish Habitat Frequency of failure to meet minimum flow targets.

Irrigation Probability of failure to supply water need for this year’s plantings.

TABLE VI. TYPICAL MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE

ACCOUNTS

An alternative may produce economic effects different stakeholders who support the same

by changing the level of activity in several means. For example, a team may be 

water purposes. For example, changing the working under a constraint to provide 

rules for reservoir releases may change the instream flows for fish. The constraint may 

level of hydropower production, navigation be managed by an state fish and game 

and several forms of lake and riverine agency and supported by a Native American

recreation. The change in each activity will tribe, an environmental group, and an

have economic consequences. association of small businesses that outfit

Establishing an account for these economic days that streamflows fell below the 

effects allows the total economic effect of an minimum standard would be a simple, useful

alternative to be summed and compared to performance measure, but it would not 

the total economic effect of other reflect the complexity of the effects of failing

alternatives. Accounts can also be to meet the standard.

established for environmental quality, social

well being, and equity, although (unlike the The environmental group might support the

economic account) there is almost certain to minimum flow standard because it helps

be more than one unit of measurement for preserve a threatened or endangered species

the effects within any one of these accounts. (an environmental effect). The tourists may 

The use of the accounts not only helps

organize the effects, it can help planners

understand distinctions between the ends of

tourists who come to fish. The number of 
STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 31 

RESISTANCE TO THE USE OF ESTIMATED

EFFECTS IN THE EVALUATION OF

ALTERNATIVES ADVANTAGES OF THE MEASURING

EFFECTS BY ACCOUNT

be concerned about the decreased opportunity Changes in the operating policies of a federal

to fish, an impact that can be measured in reservoir require an environmental 

economic terms according to their assessment.

willingness to pay for that experience. The

outfitters would have a special concern for ! will tradeoffs between regional planning

their own viability. If reducing instream objectives be necessary? In the Kanawha

flows would bankrupt a class of businesses, River DPS, an alternative was identified that

that alternative might be judged inequitable. helped many stakeholders and hurt no one. 

The tribal concern could be for the But if no such alternative can be found, then

maintenance of a traditional, formal social alternatives can only be compared to one

activity. Knowing the ultimate objectives of another using estimated effects.

each stakeholder group can help DPS teams

develop and estimate the acceptability of ! are financial costs involved? If so, then 

alternative management plans. the estimation of effects can be used to

It may be difficult and expensive to estimate

the effects of alternatives. DPS teams must The impossibility of defining and measuring

carefully consider the following questions these effects perfectly may frustrate some 

before deciding what effects should be DPS teams and preclude them from these

measured: benefits of imperfect estimations:

! do the decision criteria demand an ! estimates of economic effects can suggest

estimation of effects? In federal feasibility the underlying value of water use and

studies, the selected plan must reasonably encourage the use of water markets, dry year

maximize net NED benefits. If one of the options, or other similar alternatives in which

alternatives in a DPS involves the the use of water is traded for money. 

modification of a federal water project, then Similarly, differences in economic benefits

NED evaluation is essential. among plans can be used to justify different

determine an appropriate level of investment.

levels of investment.
32 STEP 2: DETERMINE OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

CHECKLIST OF WATER USES, PROBLEMS, AND EVALUATION MEASURES

Water

Use

Problem Planning

Objectives

Measures of

Performance

Decision

Criteria

Related

Economic,

Social,

Environmental

Impacts

Irrigation

Livestock

Watering

Municipal

Water

Industrial

Water

Hydropower

Lake

Recreation

River

Recreation

Water 

Quality

(Dilution)

Fish &

Wildlife

Habitat

Flood 

Control

Navigation

TABLE VII. A CHECKLIST OF WATER USES, PROBLEMS, PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Offstream Instream
5

PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 33

A drought preparedness study goes beyond a simple determination of future resource

conflicts; it serves as a motivator for conflict resolution. Without knowing your status quo

future, you lack a basis for motivation. After all, if you don’t know where you’re going, why

plan any changes? 

Richard Punnett (Huntington district, Corps of Engineers)

The status quo is simply a collective best estimate of what future droughts will be like if the

DPS fails to make a difference. It serves as the baseline from which to measure the strengths

and weaknesses of alternative drought responses, and a consensus view of the problems

stakeholders will face if they fail to agree on an alternative. Dr. Punnett’s reflection is drawn

from his own experience leading a DPS workshop of stakeholders who had competed for

water in a 1988 drought. He had presented a clear vision of what would happen in future

droughts under existing operating rules. The stakeholders, who had participated in the

construction of the computer model of that vision, supported a combination of two alternative

plans that hurt no one, and helped many. Whitewater rafting outfitters rejected a plan that

would have provided them with even more water because the shared vision model showed that

it would decrease lake recreation. The outfitters acknowledged that it made little sense to

hold out for the alternative that maximized their gain while hurting other stakeholders, they

almost certainly would have been left with the status quo. This chapter explains how the

status quo should be defined and modeled.

 THE STATUS QUO

Whether the subject is property lines, contingency plans, and external conditions

mountain elevations, or drought impacts, such as projected increases in population and

measurements cannot be compared unless economic activity. 

they are referenced to a baseline. The third

step of the DPS planning method is to create The status quo can also provide motivation 

a baseline by describing the future without to a DPS team to produce results, because 

the DPS; that is, how the region would the status quo is a thoughtful, detailed, and

respond to and how it would be affected by collective forecast of what the future will

droughts if no actions are taken as a result of bring if they do not.

the DPS. This future without the DPS is

referred to as the status quo. In some cases, stakeholders may refuse to

The status quo should reflect developments contesting outside the DPS. For example, 

that will change drought impacts so long as

their implementation is not related to the

DPS. These developments include such

things as additional water supplies, drought

agree on aspects of the status quo they are

two stakeholders may have opposing 

positions on a permit application for a new

water supply source, and may feel that to

publicly accept an outcome opposite their
34 PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 

position as “most likely” will be considered a The DPS team must now try to quantify the

reflection on the merits of their case. In such problems that were identified in general 

cases, DPS teams can fulfill the baseline terms in step 1 (Table II). To do that, they

requirement by selecting one of the possible will:

futures without claiming it is the most likely

scenario. ! Build a model of the water management

The effects of drought contingency plans, stakeholders. The model should include the

water laws and institutions as they currently relationship between shortfalls in water

exist should be reflected in the status quo. deliveries or levels and the impact on

This should include the basic water stakeholders.! Make hydrologic estimates of

allocation system, of either riparian or drought frequency, and select the design

appropriation type, any site-specific droughts.

programs, provisions for public trust and

instream flows, water conservation, ! Measure the performance of the water

transbasin diversions, and ground water system during the design droughts.

management (all are discussed in Annex D). 

Some of these provisions are of particular The next several pages illustrate how that

importance, as indicated in the following might be done.

paragraphs.

The DPS team should carefully define the

thresholds for implementation of extreme

measures. For example, every western

governor has the authority to “condemn” 

water rights during a drought, which is to 

take the right to use water from private 

owners if it is needed for the public good.

However, this is an extreme measure,

however, and has never been used

(Willardson, 1986).

and allocation system with involvement from
Stream: Inflow rates

Reservoir:

Quantity of water stored

Reservoir Releases

Reservoir Release Rules

Instream flow requirements

Stream flow

Water Surface Elevation

Supply of processing water

Production

Deliveries Employment

PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 35

MODELLING THE STATUS QUO

FIGURE 3. A SHARED VISION MODEL CAN ILLUSTRATE HOW STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS ARE 

CONNECTED TO MANAGEMENT OF THE WATER SYSTEM

! The shared vision model of the status quo process. In a severe drought, stream water

should define the relationship between water surfaces may drop so low that the intake is 

and the stakeholders ultimate purposes for no longer submerged. 

using water. These relationships can be

developed though interviews with principal Figure 3 illustrates how the relationship

stakeholders. The specific situation of each between stakeholders’ ultimate needs and the

stakeholder may even be modeled during the water management system can be 

interview. In the example illustrated below, diagrammed.

one stakeholder is an industry that uses water

drawn from a stream as part of its production
Supply of Processing Water

Production

Deliveries Employment

36 PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 

MODELLING THE STATUS QUO (CONTINUED)

FIGURE 4. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER

AND PRODUCTION FOR ONE STAKEHOLDER.

FIGURE 5. THE QUANTIFIED RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN COOLING WATER AND PRODUCTION.

In this example, employment and deliveries - function relating production to the supply of

the factors most directly related to processing water by “double-clicking” the

stakeholder profitability and viability - are computer mouse when the computer cursor

dependent on production, which in turn points to the icon representing “production”. 

requires processing water. The same icons These functions can be defined based on

used to diagram these relationships existing and new studies, including 

 (Figure 4) are used to quantify them interviews with the stakeholders during the

 (Figure 5). The modeler defines the DPS.
Supply of Processing Water

Stream Surface Elevation

Stream Flow

Reservoir Releases

Stream: Inflow rates

Reservoir:

Quantity of water stored

Reservoir Releases

Reservoir Release Rules

Instream flow requirements

PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 37

MODELLING THE STATUS QUO (CONTINUED)

FIGURE 6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SYSTEM AND STAKEHOLDER WATER.

FIGURE 7. THE CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY

 SYSTEM.

! The water supply system and its Figure 3 depicts the reservoir storage, inflow,

relationship to stakeholders’ needs is also release and the rules governing releases. The

modelled. Figure 6 shows how the supply of shared vision model now includes all the

processing water is a function of surface relationships necessary to determine how

water elevations at the water intake, which is changes in inflows to the reservoir or 

in turn a function of streamflows at that reservoir releases will affect employment and

point. (These relationships may have been deliveries.

developed by observation or separate

hydraulic modelling efforts). 
Daily Production Loss

Production

Cumulative Production Loss

Hourly loss = Maximum production minus actual production

 - from interview with W.C., Acme Products, 11/3/93. (RP)

Daily production loss =

24 * (80000 - PRODUCTION)

38 PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 

MODELLING THE STATUS QUO (CONTINUED)

FIGURE 8. COUNTING THE NUMBER OF DAYS

WITHOUT PROCESSING WATER.

FIGURE 9. THE DEFINITION OF DAILY

PRODUCTION LOSS.

! Performance measures should be included Figure 9 shows the equation that quantifies

in the status quo model. Figure 8 shows that daily production loss, revealed by “clicking”

one performance measure, “Cumulative when the computer cursor points to the icon

Production Loss” is defined based on Daily named “daily production loss”.

Production Loss which is in turn a function 

of “Production”.
PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 39

SELECTING DESIGN DROUGHT(S)

In flood damage reduction studies, the

expected value of future damages are Record low precipitation in the early and

estimated using a series of increasingly larger middle 1960's created a drought emergency 

and rarer floods. In many cases, large and in New England and the mid-Atlantic states.

small floods have the same shape (defined Planners had designed water systems on the

by the onset, peak, and subsidence of high drought of record, but the 1960's drought 

streamflows over time); only the magnitude was more severe (Holmes; 1979). At the

is different. Flood magnitudes can often be beginning of the National Drought Study, a

characterized in terms of one parameter; number of well informed conference speakers

streamflow. A sixty year period of stream stressed how improbable a three year 

flow records constitutes a large sample size - drought in California would be, although that

thousands of short duration flooding events - drought eventually lasted six years. The

from which to estimate the probability that National Drought Atlas can be used to

floods will exceed a given peak. determine the rarity of historic droughts, and

But droughts are not as easily characterized of the historic drought to test drought plans. 

as floods. No one can predict the form of a But the use of the historic drought cannot

future drought; droughts have different provide answers concerning the vulnerability

severities, durations, and patterns of severity. of the region to more severe droughts or

(They may be moderately severe for years or droughts with different patterns.

very severe for a season). In many regions,

multi-year droughts are of major concern. An alternative approach, easily

For some interests, the deficiency of flow in accommodated by modern computer software

a given year causes the main economic and hardware, is to consider a variety of

impact whereas for other interests, carryover synthetically defined droughts, and to worry

storage can provide for one year’s less about proving they could happen and

deficiency. The cumulative effect over worry more about the consequences if they

several years is most important. In some did happen. This will provide additional

forms of agriculture, farmers can reduce information for the DPS team. If the impacts

economic impacts of a prolonged drought by of drought increase precipitously for 

changing crops or letting fields lie fallow droughts greater than the drought of record, 

until the drought is over. the DPS team should consider the costs and

Because the sequence of events within a droughts. The desire to prove that a 

drought is important and at the same time sequence of low flows could happen may be

beyond our ability to forecast, planners often expensive and time consuming. If agreement

test drought plans by using the precipitation can be reached, further study of frequency 

and runoff recorded during historic droughts, can be curtailed. See Annex G, Hydrology,

either the worst on record, or the worst in for more information on analyzing drought

recent memory. frequencies.

The primary disadvantage to this approach 

has been the inability to estimate the

probability of a similar drought occurring in

the future. If the most severe droughts or

floods on record are not representative of the

statistical population, it is obvious that the

design will become distorted (Maass, 1962).

thus enhance planners confidence in the use 

benefits of preparing plans for these severe
40 PREDICTING THE STATUS QUO 

THE NATIONAL DROUGHT ATLAS

SPECIALIZED COMPUTER MODELS

The National Drought Atlas is a

compendium of statistics designed to help Annex N has more information on the Atlas,

water managers and planners answer including a description of how it might be

questions about the expected frequency, used.

duration and severity of droughts. The Atlas

was developed collaboratively by the Corps

of Engineers, Miami University (Ohio), the

National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and

International Business Machines (IBM). The The evaluation of alternative drought plans

Atlas is based on recently refined national requires an understanding of the relationships

precipitation and streamflow data sets. The between precipitation, streamflow, water

statistics were generated using a method withdrawals, operating rules, consumptive 

(referred to as l-moment analysis) developed use, water rights, return flows, and consumer

at IBM by J.R. Hosking and J.R. Wallis. responses to drought. In many regions, water

The method permits greater confidence in managers have already developed models of

estimating drought frequencies from the one or more of these sub-systems. 

relatively small number of droughts for 

which there are precipitation and streamflow The National Drought Study Report NDS-7,

records. Water Resources Models summarizes brand

The Atlas includes statistics in three

categories: ! general purpose software (such as

! Precipitation. There are tables and 

graphs showing the percentage of normal

precipitation that can be expected for a 

variety of durations, starting months, and

frequencies for 111 “clusters” covering the

contiguous 48 states. The recurrence 

intervals range from a 50 year dry to a 50 

year wet event.

! Streamflow. The Atlas includes tables

and graphs showing the percentage of normal

streamflow that can be expected at various

frequencies for durations of up to 12 months

at individual gaging stations in the 48

contiguous states. The return intervals are 

the same as for precipitation.

! Palmer Index. The Atlas includes tables

showing the percentage of time in the 

historic record that the Palmer Drought

Severity Index (PDSI) fell below -3, -4, and 

-5. The PDSI was calculated at 1,135

precipitation stations and are displayed state

by state. These are at-site sample statistics.

name models in eight categories: 

spreadsheets)

! municipal and industrial water use

forecasting

! water distribution systems (pipe networks)

! groundwater

! watershed runoff

! stream hydraulics

! river and reservoir water quality

! river and reservoir system operations 

Economic models and less well known, very

specialized models may be used in a DPS.

Once the planning objectives have been

identified, existing regional computer models

that can answer questions pertinent to the

planning objectives should be identified.
6

STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 41

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. 

Thomas Alva Edison, 1932

Edison’s light bulb, shining in a thought balloon, has become the image associated with the 

discovery of better ideas. But, as Edison’s famous quotation suggests, this is not how invention

works, and certainly not how new water management ideas are developed. What will prevent a 

DPS team from overlooking the good alternatives? In what detail should an alternative be

formulated before it is evaluated? And how do group dynamics influence the formulation of

alternatives? This chapter provides a conceptual framework for classifying and understanding

alternatives.

WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE?

THREE TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES

 FORMULATING ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The status quo describes how a region would such as pollution of water supply, or

deal with drought without the help of the disruption of water delivery by floods,

DPS. This scenario should include any earthquakes, and cold.

changes that would occur over the planning

period without the DPS. Conversely, Some alternatives are on the border of two

anything that the DPS could change can be categories. While it is not important for a

an alternative. study team to label an alternative as being

Measures to reduce water shortage impacts responses can be much more effective if the

can be categorized as strategic, tactical, or coordination mechanism is exercised along

emergency. Strategic measures are long- with the tactical drought response. And the

term responses, such as the provision of effectiveness of some drought contingency

water supply storage, or codes requiring the measures may be helped or hurt by the

installation of drought resistant landscaping implementation of strategic measures. 

in new homes. They are usually established Table VIII lists the three types of 

in law and supported by considerable alternatives. Flood responses can be geared

investment. Drought responses (often called to one parameter, peak flow. However,

drought contingency plans) are tactical because droughts are multi-dimensional,

measures. Tactical measures are short term tactical measures may be specified in general

and deal with problems within the framework terms during the DPS, but applied in more

set by strategic measures. Emergency specific terms during a drought.

measures are responses to circumstances that

exceeded expectations, such as droughts 

more intense or prolonged than any on 

record, or events with a very rapid onset, 

exclusively in one of these three categories, 

it is necessary for a team to consciously

consider the relationships between the three

types of measures. For example, emergency
42 STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 

THE THREE TYPES OF ALTERNATIVES

TYPES EXAMPLES

Strategic measures are 

long-term responses. 

They are more likely to be

established in law and

supported by considerable

investment.

Strategic measures include long term conservation programs,

conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, assurance

districts, construction of new reservoirs, changes in state law, 

the reassignment of water responsibilities among water 

agencies, and increasing water prices or adjusting rate 

schedules.

Tactical measures are 

short term responses 

planned within a strategic

framework 

Response measures (conservation or supply); triggers for those

responses; methods of collaboration on decisions; new decision

processes; new ways of dealing with and involving the public.

Emergency measures are

responses to unexpected

circumstances.

Emergency drought responses may be required when a drought 

is much more severe or long lasting than had been thought

possible. Emergency measures might include plant closings or 

the condemnation of water rights. A drought planning team 

might also want to consider emergency responses to water

shortages not caused by drought, such as a city’s response to an 

oil spill which will require the closure of its main water intakes, 

or an earthquake which destroys water supply lines.

TABLE VIII. THREE TYPES OF RESPONSES TO WATER SHORTAGES.

INITIAL LIST OF ALTERNATIVES

An initial list of alternatives should be quickly so that only the most promising

developed by brainstorming (see page 16) alternates are developed in detail.

early in the DPS, but after first statements of

problems and planning objectives have been Drought response plans are composed of

developed. Brainstorming can be tactical measures. Tactical plans can often

supplemented with the generic alternatives greatly reduce a region’s vulnerability to

listed in Table IX, page 49. Brainstorming is drought, and are usually easier to implement

apt to include a number of preconceived than strategic alternatives.

alternatives to the status quo, some advanced

by the stakeholders it will benefit. DPS 

teams should focus on the ends, not the 

means, and should avoid using the DPS to

justify any group’s idea. Chapter 7 describes

how these initial ideas can be evaluated
STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 43

ELEMENTS OF A TACTICAL

DROUGHT PLAN

A drought response plan is a series of they could optimize the magnitude, timing 

tactical measures that will be implemented at and duration of the response measures to

the time of the drought to reduce the residual minimize the negative impacts to 

drought vulnerability left by strategic stakeholders. Because these things generally

measures. cannot be known until the drought is over,

A tactical response plan should have the estimate supply and demand functions.

following elements:

! triggers Drought Study suggested three ways that 

! forecasts DPS teams might be able to improve the

! monitoring usefulness of forecasts. First, the forecasts

! enforcement should be used as inputs to the shared vision

! public affairs strategy model to evaluate the probable impacts of

! management measures alternative measures during a drought. 

! coordination mechanism Second, the agencies in a DPS study should

An overview of each element follows. A during the DPS to provide the most 

discussion of how strategic and tactical consistent and complete basis for individual

measures can be integrated begins on page agency responses. Third, public information

47. specialists should discuss the form of the

Triggers. Because a drought does not begin

with a climatic event, like a flood, its onset

may be difficult for stakeholders to 

recognize. A drought indicator is an 

objective measure of the system status that

can help agencies identify the onset, 

increasing or decreasing severity, and

conclusion of a drought.

Plans generally call for certain measures to 

be initiated when a drought indicator reaches 

a predefined level, a trigger. Trigger levels

can be refined through computer modelling 

to strike an acceptable balance between the

frequency of drought declarations and the

effectiveness of an early response. The 

nature of the indicator and the level at which

responses are triggered should be selected to

reduce economic and environmental

consequences.

Forecasts. If water managers knew in

advance how long a drought would last, how

severe it would be, and how effective 

demand management measures would be, 

managers use forecasting techniques to

Case study experience during the National

pool forecasting sources and data analysis

forecast information with technical 

specialists. The media and the public will

insist on simply stated predictions, and it will

take a deliberate effort by technicians and

public information specialists to develop

language that is simple and meaningful 

(NDS-5). The team may need to seek new

sources of forecast data. The National

Weather Service and the U.S. Geological

Survey are the prime sources nationwide for

forecast data, and the Soil Conservation

Service’s cooperative snow survey is an

important source in 11 western states. The

Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of

Reclamation, and most states also have

programs to collect or process forecast data.

Demand forecasts may also be important. 

Municipal consumers will greatly reduce

water use if they are convinced that the

drought is a real threat (NDS-5). But the
44 STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 

percent reduction is difficult to predict unless fundamental questions in the most

a city has recent experience or is using a straightforward terms: “Are we in a 

sophisticated disaggregated water use drought?”, “How bad is it?”, “How does this

forecasting model. affect me?”, and “When will it be over?”

Monitoring. Monitoring mechanisms must 

be used to determine if the drought response

plan is having its intended effect. In the

Seattle drought of 1992, the amount of water

consumed was published daily in a local

newspaper.

Enforcement. Demand reduction programs

must be enforced if public support for them 

is to be maintained (AWWA, 1992). 

Enforcement rules can be codified in city,

county, or state ordinances. Violators will

often be turned in by water users who are

complying, but in some cases, cities have 

used “drought police” to enforce demand

reduction ordinances. Scofflaws may be

issued warnings with educational pamphlets,

or fined. 

Public Affairs Strategy. The phrase public modification. Most major cities in the 

involvement has generally been used to refer United States have instituted some form of

to efforts that include the public in planning, strategic demand modification programs, and

whereas public relations is more often used nearly all rely on short term demand

to describe the methods an organization uses modification to address temporary, drought

to promote a favorable image with the induced shortfalls. In some communities,

public. Public information or affairs is due to the difficulty of finding new sources

somewhere in the middle, but it is the public and the general environmental opposition to

affairs staff that should communicate new dams, demand management alternatives

information to the public during a drought. must be exhausted before new supply

Previous droughts and public affairs conservation is generally used to describe

experience in other areas have shown the strategic demand management measures, and

worth of having a public affairs strategy curtailment to refer to tactical measures. 

developed by a team of water and public Specific measures include public information

affairs specialists (Opitz, 1989). The campaigns, changes in outdoor landscaping

agreement to use the collaborative DPS practices, changes in the price of water,

decision making processes during a drought regulations and incentives that increase the

can help avoid (but does not guarantee) the use of more efficient water fixtures,

communication of confusing and discordant prohibitions on certain uses, and growth

information to the public. The public will management. The use of water conservation

want to know the answers to the most has become more widespread because it can

(NDS-5). In a region with multiple water

supply systems, people may live in a

community with no drought problems and

work in another that must impose water use

restrictions. The media are not drought

experts and may not have time to learn what

they need to know during a drought. This

problem can be reduced by inviting the 

media, especially meteorologists and science

reporters, to demonstration workshops that

show highlights from virtual droughts (see

page 65). More information on public affairs

is available in Annex I.

Management measures. A variety of

tactical response measures is listed in 

Table IX. The most common are discussed

below.

! Municipal and industrial demand

sources are tapped. The term water
STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 45

be the least expensive way to accommodate Shippers can light-load barges if normal

new demands. It can also reduce the costs of channel depths are not available, but this

meeting stable demands by reducing long increases shipping costs. 

and short term energy, water treatment and

wastewater treatment costs. In-stream environmental water needs are

Water conservation may paradoxically reductions will generally have environmental

increase drought vulnerability. In the Boston effects (NDS-5). However, in some cases

area, long term water conservation has (such as the Kanawha River DPS), existing

reduced not only per capita, but total water instream flow requirements may not reflect

use (NDS-10 and 12). At the same time, the biological needs because of reductions in

water supply storage system can store several effluents since the standard was established. 

years of normal inflows. As a result, Flat water recreation may suffer from a

conservation allows higher average reservoir decrease in demand during drought because

storage levels, and reduces drought of aesthetics (mud flats replace shoreline), 

vulnerability. but the visitors that do come may be able to

However, the Boston case is atypical. and dock modifications. Whitewater rafters

Absent multi-year storage, water saved from can use a greater number of smaller rafts. 

long term conservation may only be

conserved for that year. When droughts do

occur, storage will be about the same and the

percent reduction in water use possible from

curtailment will be less.

The question of whether and to what degree

water conservation and drought vulnerability

are interdependent can be answered using a

system analysis such as the Massachusetts

Water Supply Authority’s “Trigger 

Planning”, a system of data and models built

around a shared vision model (NDS-12).

! Modification of other demands. with respect to safe yields.

Farmers adapt to market trends and water

availability before planting, but after planting

have a limited ability to curtail water use

during a drought (NDS-5).

 

Hydropower production may or may not

reduce the availability of water for other

critical needs. Hydropower production can 

be replaced by thermal power during

droughts, but at a financial cost and with a

potential impact on air quality.

generally set at threshold levels, so further

be accommodated with boat ramp extensions

! Conjunctive use. Although surface and

ground water supplies have usually been

developed separately, the increasing 

difficulty in finding new sources of water

supply is causing increased interest in

conjunctive use, or joint development of

ground and surface sources. The potential

for increasing safe yield by this approach is

considerable.

In large, deep aquifers, withdrawals from

groundwater can be increased during drought

provided that proper arrangements are made
Annual Use

Multi-year Use: Droughts Only

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Year: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No Drought Drought No Drought

Recharge

Recharge

Withdrawn

Withdrawn

46 STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 

FIGURE 10. CONJUNCTIVE USE OF GROUNDWATER FOR DROUGHT

The possibilities of conjunctive use are reasons for this. Many groundwater basins

illustrated in Figure 10. The upper diagram have neither been quantified nor allocated

shows use of underground storage for annual among users. Preservation of water quality

periods of deficiency, resulting either during the recharge of aquifers is critical, 

because of low flows, poor quality in and requires coordination between regulatory

streams, or of high seasonal water use. The and supply management agencies. Perhaps

lower diagram shows the potential for saving most significantly, conjunctive management 

the limited potential of underground storage is discouraged by the lack of definition of

to cope with shortages during droughts only. rights to recapture surface water stored in

A more sophisticated method of using underground basins (ACIR, 1991).

underground storage is by aquifer recharge

and recovery. This is often done in 

California, where spring runoff and even

reclaimed wastewater can be used for

recharge.

Despite its potential, conjunctive use

arrangements have not been exploited as 

fully as they could be. There are many

Operational coordination. As the difficulty

of developing additional supply storage

increases, the advantages of increasing safe

yield through the coordinated operation of

multiple water systems has become more

appealing. Such possibilities are not apt to 

be among the first to be suggested. In fact,

administrators and operators of water 
STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 47

INTEGRATING STRATEGIC AND

TACTICAL PLANS

systems are usually very reluctant to consider measures. The model should also be used

such an alternative, which would deprive during a drought to reanalyze the benefits,

each system of a part of its operating costs and risks of shifting to the next 

autonomy in the interest of overall efficiency response stage too soon or too late.

and total aggregate safe yield. However, as

the other disadvantages of alternatives are

evaluated, intersystem operational

coordination may become the only practical

answer.

Depending on the circumstances, operational based on sound principles for water 

coordination of the facilities of two or more resources planning and management for all

water systems can usually provide a safe meteorological conditions. The frequency of

yield of water greater than the total available. drought declarations, and the effectiveness of

This can happen if the systems are operated tactical and strategic measures are

separately, each maximizing its own financial interdependent.

return. The classic example is in the 

Potomac River Basin. Coordinated operation As part of the National Drought Study, the

of the upstream and downstream facilities of Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

the various public and private utilities can (MWRA), the Water Supply Citizens

produce a total safe yield 45% higher than Advisory Committee (WSCAC), and the 

that of the same utilities operated separately New England division of the Corps of

(Eastman, 1986). In other river basins such Engineers collaborated on a project to relate

large savings are not usually possible. strategic and tactical water resources

However, a study made for the State of New measures. Collectively referred to as trigger

Jersey for public and private systems on the planning, it is an attempt at what might be

Passaic River showed that a 25% increase in called “just in time” water supply

total safe yield could be gained by an enhancement; an operational system that can

integrated operational control (David, 1989). reduce economic and environmental

On a smaller scale, regional use of reservoir investments in supply and demand measures

systems is being developed in Texas. while maintaining necessary water supply

Staging management measures. Drought

response measures come at a cost, so their

imposition should come in stages

commensurate with the seriousness of the

threat of drought damages. Early invocation

of moderate demand reduction measures can

delay or prevent the implementation of more

restrictive responses. Still, the decision to

intervene earlier in a drought is a decision to

increase the number of drought declarations

over time. Again, position analysis using the

shared vision model can help the DPS team

develop general relationships between 

triggers and the degree of drought response

The DPS method of preparing for drought is

reliability.

Droughts in the 1960's in New England and

the mid-Atlantic and in the 1980's and 90's 

in Atlanta, California, and Seattle brought

renewed public interest and support for

strategic changes to balance water supply and

demand. Even if studies of strategic 

measures begin before water shortages occur,

there is no assurance that the study will solve

the problem. Supporters and 

opponents of various supply and demand

management alternatives may contest each

others positions in planning, regulatory,

legislative and judicial forums. If the
48 STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 

FIGURE 11. TRIGGER PLANNING KEEPS ECONOMIC

AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS IN WATER

SUPPLY LOW WHILE AVOIDING CATASTROPHIC

WATER SUPPLY FAILURES.

planning recommendations are rejected in a current. If new forecasts call for slower

permitting process or judicial review, more growth, trigger points are moved into the

time will be required to develop an future and implementation of the next step is

acceptable alternative plan to an delayed.

implementable level of detail.

Trigger planning is a new approach to 

urban water management. MWRA’s trigger

planning system is built from traditional data

sources and models, but with three additional

and unusual building blocks:

! the close collaboration of WSCAC and

MWRA. MWRA pays for two full-time 

staff positions and office expenses for

WSCAC. WSCAC has complete online

access to MWRA’s computer files. WSCAC

is respected for its independence and support

for environmental and fiscal values. 

However, its closeness to MWRA allows it 

to contribute earlier in the planning process,

before an agency position has been taken and

while there is time and money to change 

plans.

! the use of a shared vision model

! the use of IWR-MAIN 6.0 to develop 

water use forecasts that can reflect a variety 

of potential water conservation plans.

The resulting system allows WSCAC and

MWRA to continuously monitor water use

forecasts, present use, safe yield, and cost

effectiveness. The point in the future when

water use is forecasted to exceed the safe

yield of the system is called a “critical 

point”. Estimates can be made of the 

amount of time and the separable increments

for implementing a solution that will avoid

water supply shortfalls, so that the date and

minimum requirement of the first step in the

solution can be identified. The date for first

required action is called the “trigger point”. 

Because water use forecasts can be easily

adjusted as new population and employment

forecasts become available, trigger points for

later stages of implementation can be kept

Trigger planning is expected to reduce the 

risk of water supply shortfall and the risk of

over-investment of environmental and

economic resources to create an 

unnecessarily generous supply.

In addition, the family of models integrates

long term and drought water management,

allowing estimation of the effect of long-term

conservation measures on water curtailment

programs used during drought.

After the difficulties of implementing the 

more obvious alternatives are explored

(Chapters 8 and 9), it may be found that 

some of the other alternatives may have to 

be reconsidered more seriously.
STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 49

Supply Alternatives

STRATEGIC TACTICAL

 New storage T

 Reallocation of supplies T

 New system interconnections T

 Desalinization, importation by barge, reuse T T

Operational Changes

 Conjunctive use management T T

 Water banking T

 Long-term changes in reservoir release rules T

 Conditional reservoir operation and in-steam flows T

 Water marketing T T

 Institutional changes T

 Legal changes T

 Operational coordination between systems T T

Demand Modification

 Voluntary and mandatory use restrictions T T

 Pricing changes T T

 Public awareness T T

 Changes in plumbing codes T

 Conservation credits T T

 Changes in irrigation methods T

 Industrial conservation techniques T T

 Alternatives to water consuming activities T

Environmental and Water Quality Changes

 Reductions in required low flows T

 Alternative means of achieving water quality T

TABLE IX. A LIST OF TYPICAL STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL MEASURES.
50 STEP 3: FORMULATE ALTERNATIVES 
7

STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 51

Once the objective has been determined, our methodology leads to the selection of that 

combination of structures, levels of development for different water uses, and operating

procedures that will best achieve the objective.

- Arthur Maass (Design of Water Resources Systems, 1962)

The methods of water system design developed by an interdisciplinary team at Harvard University

are best known for their influence on the study of the feasibility of new water projects. However,

as the quotation from Professor Maass, the principal author of Design of Water Resource Systems

shows, the concept of objective based design can be applied to operating procedures as well. In

this step, the team compares proposed alternatives against the status quo, measuring how well 

they meet the objectives developed in step 2. The team will eliminate or redesign alternatives that

do not measure up, until they are ready to recommend a plan to decision makers. This chapter

describes how to conduct such an evaluation.

INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

 EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

Evaluation is the process of estimating how The P&G list four characteristics of good

well alternatives perform in the five plans. These characteristics are general

categories of measurement described in enough that they are appropriate for federal 

Chapter 4. In each category, the alternatives or non-federal planning efforts:

are measured against the common baseline of

the status quo. In order to make the best use ! completeness (all the elements required to

of study resources and be responsive to those make the plan work are included in the 

who have suggested alternatives to the status plan);

quo, the evaluation process should begin 

with brief, documented reviews of many ! effectiveness (the alternative addresses the

alternatives and end with more thorough planning objectives); 

reviews of just a few alternatives.

The preliminary screening of alternative ! efficiency (the ratio of plan outputs to

plans can be done by determining whether inputs). 

they address the planning objectives, how 

they perform (according to the accepted Alternatives should first be examined to see 

measures of performance), and how well if they are complete. Completeness does not

they satisfy decision makers’ criteria. Plans imply a high degree of detail; at this point,

that meet these preliminary tests can then be alternatives should not be developed in 

evaluated according to their economic, social detail. Completeness simply means that the

and environmental impacts. basic components have been identified.

! acceptability (the plan satisfies decision

criteria and does not violate planning

constraints); and 
52 STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative

Plan Number

Is the plan

Complete?

Acceptability Effectiveness

Meets decision

criteria?

Violates

constraints?

Meets planning objectives?

1 No N/A N/A N/A

2 Yes No Yes Does not meet water quality

objective. 

3 Yes Maybe Yes Does not increase

hydropower production

4 Yes Yes No Yes

...

11 Yes Yes No Yes

12 Yes Yes No Should greatly help M&I,

may hurt river recreation

The initial screening focuses on the characteristics that are necessary and more easily assessed: 

completeness and acceptability. An incomplete alternative can be reformulated and assessed again.

This initial assessment takes place before any alternatives are modeled, so neither the performance

or effects of alternatives can be estimated at this stage.

TABLE X. AN INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

MODELING

For example, an alternative that calls for the permits the focusing of study resources on 

joint operation of independent water systems the detailed evaluation of the most promising

is incomplete if it fails to include the alternatives. 

construction of the necessary physical

connection between systems.

The initial screening should emphasize

effectiveness and acceptability. As Table X Each of the alternatives being seriously

illustrates, this can be done using decision

criteria, planning objectives and constraints. 

The goal of the initial screening is to 

eliminate some alternatives, and develop a

ranking of the remaining alternatives. The

process of ranking may help in the 

continuing effort to communicate and clarify

objectives and criteria. The initial screening

considered should now be modeled. In some

cases, teams may decide that each alternative

should be represented by a separate model (a

modification of the status quo model saved

with a different file name). In other cases,

teams may decide that alternatives can be

more effectively represented by internal

“switches” in the status quo model which
STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 53

ESTIMATING EFFECTS

effects the desired change in water But most water transactions are not based on

management procedures. The models market forces; they are typically based on

provide the plan performance and outputs past use and regulation. Hence, the

required for detailed evaluation. calculation of changes in consumer and

Using the model, the next level of evaluation competing uses cannot be done

can be on the basis of performance straightforwardly. The application of

measures. For example, the model can be economic principles to drought is fraught

used to estimate how much more frequently with conceptual difficulties. There are some

would a city have to impose curtailment generally accepted methods of estimating

under an alternative than under the status these benefits, however, and these are

quo. (See page 38 for a display of how these explained in Annex F.

performance measures would be modeled, 

and page 57 to see what the outputs for an An analysis of the economic impacts of

alternative might look like.) droughts creates a rational basis for making

Sometimes an evaluation using just water was shifted from one use to another).

performance measures is enough. If

operational changes can be made that benefit Like all components of a DPS, the extent of

many users and hurt none (including the the economic analysis is constrained by 

environment), and the value of the benefits study budgets and schedules, and must 

clearly outweigh the administrative costs of reflect how important economic effects will 

instituting the changes, then an evaluation of be to decision makers.

the economic and social effects of each

alternative is unnecessary. But what if there If an alternative includes changes in the

is an alternative that benefits some users and operation of a federal project, then an

hurts others? Or what if an alternative helps evaluation of NED may be necessary. In

everyone, but has a significant financial cost? general, there will be greater interest in

In those cases, an evaluation of the regional economic development (RED)

economic, environmental, and social effects benefits (regional efficiency) and impacts

of the alternatives is the only way to (distribution of benefits, employment).

determine which alternative best addresses 

the goals and decision criteria. Environmental and social impacts of the

Economic benefits can be defined in market quantitatively as far as practicable. This

transactions as the sum of producer and means evaluation in terms such as the

consumer surplus. Both are based on the number of fish killed or criteria of water

volume of transaction(s) at a price. quality affected by a given stream flow. 

Consumer surplus is the difference between This may be very difficult to estimate.

what consumers would have been willing to There is considerable information concerning

pay and what they did pay; producer surplus

is the difference between what a producer

would have been willing to sell for and the

actual revenue received.

producer surpluses among five or six

monetary tradeoffs to reduce the net impact 

of a drought. These tradeoffs may be made

between financial (benefit/cost ratio) or

opportunity costs (the benefit lost because

various alternatives should be evaluated

the general relationship between the

preservation of aquatic habitat for different

species and water characteristics such as

flow velocity, stage, temperature, wetted
54 STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 

TRADEOFFS ACROSS

ACCOUNTS

area, and concentration of dissolved oxygen across accounts, they will be negotiated and

(Arnette, 1976). Fish populations in a given constrained by law and politics. 

year, however, may be a function of a

sequence of events within the river basin However, cost-effectiveness frontiers and

(Miller, 1976) as well as factors unrelated incremental (marginal) cost analysis can be

to water management, such as the number of used to minimize the costs associated with

anadromous fish caught off shore (NDS-5). producing a given level of social or

The effects of droughts that last as long as environmental impacts, and to associate costs

the entire reproductive period of a species and impacts as the basis for negotiation. The

are also not well known (NDS-5). The U.S. goal of these methods is to reveal how much

Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the environmental output is generated per

Interior) and the National Marine Fisheries incremental dollar spent per alternative. A

Service (Department of Commerce) should description of how an incremental cost

be consulted to determine if there are analysis is done is shown on page 56

threatened or endangered species in the study (Hansen).

area. If so, the DPS team should identify

constraints on operating policies which 

would affect those species. Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public

Law 93-205) requires all Federal agencies to

seek to conserve threatened and endangered 

species, and to insure that the actions of

Federal agencies do not jeopardize the

continued existence of any threatened or

endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of the

habitat determined by the Secretaries of

Interior or Commerce to be critical unless an

exemption has been granted by the 

Endangered Species Committee (EP 1165-2-

1).

The discussion of accounts on page 30

explains their usefulness in organizing the

effects of an alternative in a meaningful way. 

By definition, there can be no pre-existing 

rate of trade between effects from different

accounts. That does not mean that society

assigns an infinitely large or small economic

value to social and environmental impacts. 

It does mean that trading among the accounts

will be difficult. If tradeoffs must be made

Risk and Uncertainty. The definitions of

these terms as they are applied to water

resources management have changed a little

over time. Risk refers to some negative

consequence with an associated probability,

even if that probability is difficult to 

calculate. Risk in water resources

management has until recently been defined 

as the product of the consequence of events

multiplied by the probability of the events,

that is to say, as an expected value of 

damages (Guidelines For Risk, 1992). The

classic definition of uncertainty involved

those unknowns that could not be expressed 

in probablistic terms.

In flood damage reduction studies, risk 

which is an expected value of the damage

from extreme, but rare floods can be

compared to annual or present day costs to

determine if it would be cost effective to

reduce residual flood damages even further 

by increasing the size of the flood control

project. In strategic water supply studies, the

“rare, large event” is the drought, and the 

risk associated with any strategic supply plan 

is the product of the expected consequences 

of future droughts times their probability.

But research and experience has shown that

people react differently to the risks of a low

probability, high consequence events (a 500
STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 55

DECISION SUPPORT SOFTWARE

year flood, for example) and a high require a listing and ranking or weighting of

probability, low consequence events (a 2 the decision criteria. Use of decision support

year flood), even though they may have the software may help:

same expected value (Guidebook for Risk

Perception and Communication, 1993). ! focus attention on the criteria during the

Thus a more useful definition of risk has evaluation of alternatives;

come into use, that does not multiply

damage by probability: risk is the expression ! the DPS team think about the relative

an undesirable consequence in terms of the importance of the criteria, and degrees of

probability of it happening. fulfillment of each criterion;

The concept of risk in tactical drought ! document the evaluation of alternatives

contingency plans has much in common with leading to the selection of the recommended

the risks associated with flood warning plan.

systems that are used to minimize damage

from floods larger than the design flood. These packages can enrich a DPS team’s

Risks in drought management include: understanding of the process that will be 

the risk that a very severe drought will to accept their recommendations. DPS

cause a catastrophe; teams should consider using sociologists,

risk that the drought response plan will specialists, or other professionals with

be triggered too often (risking reduced experience in this area.

effectiveness of public participation in

subsequent droughts) or too late The evaluation of alternatives should lead to

(eliminating water savings that would tentative recommendations from the DPS

have been possible had the response team. The next chapter describes how to

been initiated sooner). secure the commitment of decision makers to

Both of these risks can be assessed using the

shared vision model. No simple 

quantification, however, will generally be

possible, because of the various

combinations of severities and durations of

droughts. Nonetheless, the use of the

Drought Atlas (see Annex G) and

simulations with the shared vision model

can develop a better informed sense of the

risk that can be more clearly communicated

to decision makers and elected officials.

There is a sound theoretical base and a 

variety of computer software packages for

modeling decision processes. The software

packages create mathematical models that

used when regional leaders decide whether

political scientists, conflict resolution

a plan.
2000 

3000 

4000 

5000 

6000 

7000 

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Units of Output

Total Cost ($)

A

B

C D

E

Cost Effectiveness

Frontier

56 STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 

Plan

Element

Units of

Output Total Cost

A 80 $2,000

B 100 $2,600

C 110 $3,400

D 120 $3,600

E 140 $7,000

TABLE XI. THE COSTS PER UNIT OF

OUTPUT (FOR EXAMPLE, ACRES OF

WETLAND)

FIGURE 12. THE COST EFFECTIVENESS FRONTIER.

FIGURE 13. IT COSTS $25 PER UNIT TO INCREASE

OUTPUTS FROM 0 TO 80 UNITS, BUT $50 PER

UNIT TO GO FROM 100 TO 120 UNITS.

Steps in an

Incremental Cost Analysis

These four steps offer a simplified example of how

incremental cost analysis is done. 

1. State the planning objectives in such a way that

a metric for environmental or social outputs can be

used relative to these objectives. For example, the

team might want to “increase wetland functions”

compared to the status quo. One metric might be

the number of wetted acres added (over the status

quo) by Alternatives A-E.

2. Create a table that shows the costs and outputs

of each alternative (Table XI).

3. Plot a cost-effectiveness frontier, as shown in

Figure 11, that corresponds to the data in Table XI

by connecting (or smoothing) the most costeffective points. Alternative “C” is above the

frontier because it offers less environmental output

per dollar than the B-D frontier suggests is

possible. The frontier can be useful as a screening

mechanism because no plan above the frontier plan

is as cost-efficient in producing a given output as

the plan on the frontier at the same output.

4. Graph the incremental cost per unit (Change in

cost ÷ change in output) as shown in Figure 12.

This graph gives a clear picture of how costs

increase incrementally as greater outputs are

pursued. The graph simply displays some of the

information included in Table XI more clearly, and

by doing so, may help teams decide what level of

output is economically acceptable.

Combinations of measures can be compared by

adding a few more steps. (Hansen, 1993). 
Week 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 

$20M

$10M

Cumulative Tourism Revenue - Alternatives 1 vs 2

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 57

PLANNINGOBJECTIVES

MEASURES OFPERFORMANCE

EFFECTS

The table below illustrates how a shared vision model can be used to analyze and display the

effects of 2 alternative drought plans that have passed a preliminary screening (they both meet the

planning objectives and violate no constraints). The comparison is based on a simulation of the

drought of record, a one year period. When compared to the status quo, the two alternatives both

reduce the number of days of curtailment of M&I and recreation, and cause no additional

reduction in hydropower production. (Under the status quo, it would cost $12,000,000 to replace

the hydropower lost during this year long drought, and that remains true under these two

alternatives.) Alternative 2 permits more rafting days than Alternative 1, but also requires a

longer period of urban water use curtailment. Which should be sacrificed? The measurement and

comparison of the effects of each alternative provides valuable information in such cases. 

Standard of comparison Status Quo Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Improve M&I service Yes Yes

Increase rafting Yes Yes

Maintain hydropower Yes Yes

Days of rationing 100 60 75

Number of rafting days 0 56 112

Hydropower produced 123 MW 123MW 123MW

Recreation benefits

over status quo (NED)

$23,000,000 $56,000,000

Increase in tourism

revenue over the status

quo (RED).

M&I utility revenue

shortfall

$10,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000

Replacement power

costs

$12,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000

TABLE XII. A MORE DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
58 STEP 4: EVALUATING THE ALTERNATIVES 
8

STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 59

The danger in not formalizing the plan is that a change in political or administrative leadership

may lead to decay of the plan’s infrastructure. It must be emphasized that political interest in

drought quickly wanes when the crisis is over.

- Donald A. Wilhite (Drought Assessment, 1993)

The DPS team constitutes a new, integrated community that more closely mirrors the integrated

nature of the problemshed. But as the team’s planning work nears completion, it must find a way

to institutionalize the integrated problem solving approach so that it can outlive the DPS for use 

in the next drought. To do that, decision makers must approve the recommendations of the DPS

team and agree to change the institutions of the entities they manage to reflect that agreement. 

This chapter offers some ways to negotiate that approval.

RECOMMENDING A PLAN

 INSTITUTIONALIZING THE PLAN

The findings of the DPS are presented as a To help secure commitment from decision

written report; but the most important makers, the DPS team should organize

product of the DPS is the new process of evaluation data and prepare presentations in

water management. A successful DPS is such a way that the “bottom line” is clear to

institutionalized by agreement among the decision makers. These decision makers will

responsible agencies to act according to the not have the benefit of immersion in the

findings of the DPS. evaluation process with the shared vision

In this step, the DPS team recommends a 

plan to decision makers, specifies necessary A process which was used in the plan

changes in laws and regulations, completes selection workshop in the Kanawha River 

environmental assessments or impact DPS proved to be very useful for building

statements, and facilitates negotiations on the confidence in the selection process. As part

agreement(s) decision makers must approve of the workshop, a “Decision Matrix” was

to institutionalize the new processes. prepared, (Table XIII), which illustrated

The final selection process must include estimate how each alternative would affect 

negotiations, bearing in mind that what is the interests of stakeholders. Next, the

most important is not the personal opinion of workshop facilitator, using a table showing

the individuals around the table but general each of the planning objectives as column

public opinion and the political influence of headings and each of the alternatives as 

the organizations which these individuals rows, scored each alternative from “---” (very

represent. negative impact) to “+++” (very positive) for

model that the DPS team members enjoyed.

comparison of impacts, including both

economic and non-economic. First, the

distinct features of each plan were reviewed

and their shared vision model was used to

each objective. As he did so, workshop
60 STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 

CHANGES IN LAWS AND REGULATIONS

participants were encouraged to debate the ! to accept the fact that, even with the

rating based on the model outputs, and to best plan, impacts of a severe drought 

assign their own ratings on a similar blank will be very damaging;

score sheet each had received. These

simplified ratings merged the performance of ! to decide that the interests of the 

the plan on the two design droughts that had region would be best protected by 

been considered, and took account of all the pushing for a long-range solution, either

measures for each objective. new infrastructure or one of the nonThe scoring showed that two alternatives

improved the performance of the system in ! to agree to pursue the plan that helps

several objective categories, and matched the most stakeholders;

performance of the status quo in all other

objectives. The analysis showed that Plans 4 ! to agree to pursue the plan that helps

and 5 helped water quality, rafting, and lake most stakeholders, but with payments to

recreation, and did not affect hydropower or those who are hurt;

navigation. Plan 2 helped rafters, but hurt

lake recreation; Plan 3 did just the opposite. ! to accept a plan in principle, but agree

Because plans 4 and 5 were not mutually to proceed with it during a drought only 

exclusive, the workshop participants agreed if possible losses by some stakeholders

that a plan that combined the advantages of do not materialize (because of changed

both should be used during the next drought. conditions or uncertainties about the

In many cases, the choice will not be as 

clear. In those cases, Circle B and C

participants can enter into a process of

negotiation supported by the shared vision

model and evaluation data. These If the recommended plan includes changes in

negotiations are most likely to be successful existing laws, regulations, or structures, then

if the participants have been given specific the team should develop a plan to effect 

authority to make agreements for decision those changes. The team should be mindful 

makers. Otherwise, no participant will know of the fact that these changes will probably 

if further concessions will be needed. not occur until sometime after the DPS is

Further modifications to alternatives or new complete, and must be budgeted and staffed

conditions for their use may be considered to separately. Now the early effort to include

develop a consensus on a recommendation. those involved in long term management

It may be useful to break into smaller groups processes (see page 18) will pay dividends.

to determine if the small groups could 

support an alternative plan before negotiating As the choice between alternatives narrows, 

in plenary sessions.

When stakeholders believe that no alternative

reduces impacts enough, the options that

remain are:

structural long-range alternatives;

estimates of harm).

it is desirable to make final checks upon 

cost, financing, legality, and public

acceptability. The adoption of the plan will

be manifested by publication of the report; 

but the effectiveness of the plan depends 
STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 61

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

NEGOTIATING CLOSURE

THE AGREEMENT

upon agreement by the responsible agencies Implementation is greatly simplified if the 

to implement it. area of concern lies in a single state, or if it 

If the recommended plan involves changes in necessary.

the operation of federal water projects, the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requires an environmental review. The

minimum required response is an

Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding

of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The DPS

should have involved environmental

representatives and investigated potential

environmental impacts, making it easy, fast

and inexpensive to produce the formal EA 

and FONSI. If there are significant impacts,

an Environmental Impact Statement must be

prepared and circulated for approval.

The connections from Circle A, B, and C to

Circle D must now be exercised. The

decision makers who will sign the agreement

to institutionalize the recommended plan 

must be approached and any remaining

conditions for their signing negotiated.

The DPS team may decide to present their

process and findings to decision makers in a

final workshop. The purpose of this

demonstration workshop is to showcase the

collaborative analytic efforts and the support

for the recommended plan among those most

affected by it.

Institutionalization requires written

agreement to act according to the findings of

the DPS. Operating policies (reservoir or

pump station operating plans, or individual

drought contingency plans) may have to be

revised within the collaborating agencies

near or after the completion of the DPS. 

is encompassed by a River Basin

Commission, with responsibilities related to

drought. Otherwise, interstate agreements or

memoranda of understanding will be

Partnering agreements, which have been

used by the Corps of Engineers to improve 

the quality and productivity of the Corps

construction contracts, may be helpful in

publicizing the intent of the agencies to act

according the findings and spirit of the DPS. 

A partnering agreement does not legally bind

the signers to a set of actions, but simply

expresses the mutual advantage desire in

acting in a particular collaborative fashion. 

An example of a partnering agreement is

shown in Figure 13. A partnering agreement

can:

! establish a continuing collaborative

process;

! support the maintenance and use of the

shared vision model;

! name those involved in drought

committees;

! establish legal bounds on the agreement;

! specify when Virtual Drought Exercises

will be held.
62 STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 

Simple matrices like this can be used to starkly and clearly portray the DPS team evaluation

process to decision makers after the team has used more sophisticated and quantitative analyses to

select a recommended plan. This table made it clear to the participants of the Kanawha River

DPS workshop that delaying the start of water quality releases and varying the amounts of those

releases hurt no one and benefited many. Even water quality was improved, since dissolved

oxygen levels were high at the beginning of a drought, and delaying augmentation releases

conserved water that could be released later in the summer when dissolved oxygen levels were

lower.

Objective6

Alternative 9

Increase the

quality of river

water in the

Kanawha River

basin during

drought

Increase the

reliability and

value of the 

Gauley River

whitewater rafting

experience during

drought

Increase the

reliability of lake

recreation in the

Kanawha River

Basin during

drought

Increase the

reliability of

hydropower

generation in the

Kanawha River

basin during

drought

Increase the

reliability of

navigation on 

the Kanawha

River during

drought

Status Quo 0 0 0 0 0

Increase

Summer Pool 

by 17 feet

0 + + 0 +

Reduce target

flows 

0 +++ -- 0 0

Override rule to

conserve water

in 

Summersville

0 - + 0 0

Delay start of

WQ releases

+ ++ ++ 0 0

Vary the 

amount of WQ

releases

+ ++ + 0 0

KEY: - means an adverse impact; + a positive impact; the more +’s or -’s, the greater the

effect of the plan

TABLE XIII. FINAL PRESENTATIONS TO DECISION MAKERS SHOULD MAKE THE RESULTS AS

CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 63

Once the agreement is signed, the greatest threat to its effectiveness will be the passage of time 

and the press of other concerns. As time passes, the threat of drought will seem more distant, the

staff members and stakeholders will work on other projects, change careers, or retire. The next

chapter describes how to exercise and update the plan.
64 STEP 5: INSTITUTIONALIZING A PLAN 

This agreement expresses our recognition of common goals and shared responsibilities in the

management of water in the __________ basin during drought. This agreement builds upon the

mutually beneficial relationships which already exists among the stakeholders and agencies

involved in the management of the _________ system. 

A shared vision model of the _______ system was developed during the recent _______ DPS to 

help resolve conflicts and reach consensus among resource managers as mutually acceptable

operating plans are developed during periods of water shortage.

In recognition of the threat water shortages present to us all, and to provide a foundation for

management of the shared vision model, we agree to:

! Work together as regional partners, in an atmosphere of cooperation, open communication and

trust, to encourage a problem-solving attitude.

! Use the shared vision model to enhance and improve resource management in the _________

system. The model will be available for use by all parties involved in making water resource

management decisions, to facilitate independent evaluation and development of alternative 

operating scenarios. _____________ will maintain the official version of the model.

! Participate in virtual drought exercises in the spring of even numbered years. The purpose of 

the VDE is to exercise and update our collective drought response.

! Convene a meeting of the signatory groups whenever any of us requests to determine whether 

to implement a drought response.

To ensure that the official version of the model contains current and accurate information, 

streamflow data will be updated as needed by _____________. Changes which affect model

operation and/or outputs (i.e. addition of system components or correction of errors) will be

documented and reported to all of us for consideration.

Resource managers are encouraged to modify the model, to aid them in identifying and evaluating

management strategies and to develop new insights. They are also encouraged to inform others of

such modifications and their effects on model operation.

___________ will maintain a list of agencies involved in the management process that have been

given access to the model. This list will be distributed to all signatories.

Designated points of contact for each signatory agency will meet regularly, in conjunction with

scheduled interagency coordination meetings, to review the model, its use, and changes to the 

model.

FIGURE 13. A SAMPLE PARTNERING AGREEMENT.
9

EXERCISE, UPDATE AND USE THE PLAN 65

A drought plan, like a fire evacuation plan, will be most effective if exercised regularly. Like 

a fire drill, a drought exercise can show new people and remind veterans what the plan is. 

But unlike a fire drill, water managers are apt to find the corridors have changed; water 

uses diversify and intensify in the years between droughts, and new stakeholders must be

brought into the process. When droughts do occur, the plan will be tested, and managers will

have a unique and valuable opportunity to learn if they consciously record the events during

the drought and compare them to their expectations. 

VIRTUAL DROUGHT EXERCISE

 EXERCISE, UPDATE,

AND USE THE PLAN

Some of the good work done in the 

preceding steps can be undone by the 

passage of time. It may be several years 

after a DPS before another drought occurs. During the conduct of the four demonstration

During that time, professional staff may studies, Dr. Richard Palmer, a University of

change jobs, water uses may change in Washington researcher and the developer of

nature and quantity, and new laws may be the simulation model used in the first 

passed that affect the way the water system Potomac exercise, suggested that the shared

can be operated. The result is that the trust vision models and close collaboration among

and familiarity developed during the DPS stakeholders in a DPS would make it 

will diminish, and the region’s vulnerability possible to simulate a drought more

to drought will gradually return. realistically than ever before. The resultant

The solution is to exercise the plan. It is a the years after a tactical drought plan had 

simple concept, used quite commonly in been designed to exercise a regional drought

other areas of hazards management from fire preparedness strategy. This would let 

drills to military maneuvers. The idea of a agencies address new water uses and train 

drought exercise has been used since the new staff and stakeholders. The first virtual

early 1980's by the Interstate Commission on drought was held in Tacoma, Washington on

the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), which August 4, 1993 as part of the Cedar and

coordinates water management in the Green River Basins DPS. It was well

Washington Metropolitan Area (WMA). An received by the participants and can be used

annual exercise is important for the Potomac as a model for other regions interested in

because coordinated management of several exercising water plans.

water systems was used in lieu of additional

storage to increase the safe yield of the A Virtual Drought Exercise should have the

collective system. following elements:

Virtual Drought Exercise could be used in
66 EXERCISE, UPDATE AND USE THE PLAN 

USING THE PLAN

! a facilitator, to explain the rules of the version of the shared vision model to 

VDE and manage the time spent on estimate drought impacts under different

negotiations; policies. The sensitivity of the impacts to

! participants, namely the people who a range of forecasts centered around the

would represent water agencies and published forecast. Participants then

stakeholder groups during a drought; negotiated decisions as they would during

! a member of the press or a public affairs requirements, the imposition of water

person to represent the needs and influence curtailment measures, the supplementation

of the media; of surface supplies with groundwater, and

! data synthesized for the exercise, including

forecasts, initial storage amounts, inflows, Debriefing discussions were held 

and demand variables. Virtual droughts immediately following the exercise. The

should require participants to confront the universally high level of attention and

uncertainties of real droughts concerning occasional signs of irritation brought out

future precipitation, streamflow, and during the exercise offered testimony to the

consumer responses to drought measures. realism of the exercise.

Although the designers of the VDE will 

know all the hydrologic data for the exercise,

they should not share them with the

participants except as they are revealed 

during the unfolding of the virtual events. The difficulties of using the recommended

! two versions of the shared vision model, reduced by regular exercise. In only one 

modified for this specific application. The case (the Kanawha River) has a drought 

first is used by the facilitator to track the threat occurred since a DPS plan was 

performance of the system as decisions are adopted. The use of the shared vision

made. The second is used by the model and the coordination mechanisms

participants to estimate the impacts from developed during the DPS would have

alternative management decisions; avoided millions of dollars in losses to

! a scoring system (optional) to measure the continued. The DPS team in the Kanawha

performance of the participants. was pleased that the DPS process worked

The Tacoma virtual drought took place advances from the DPS will be as

during one seven-hour session in a large effective in ten years.

conference area. Each segment began when

the facilitator ran his version of the shared There could still be a problem recognizing 

vision model to simulate from 2 to 6 weeks that a drought has begun. Although the

of system operation. The facilitator then DPS plan should have well defined triggers

announced the new system states (reservoir for each phase of a drought response,

levels, release patterns, shortfalls, etc.) and using them still requires human monitoring

called for a “forecast”. After the participants and judgement.

questioned the forecaster, they used a second

forecast errors was also analyzed by using

a drought on such issues as minimum flow

changes in reservoir operating policies. 

plan during a drought should be greatly

regional tourism had the 1993 drought

so well, but the real test will be whether the
EXERCISE, UPDATE AND USE THE PLAN 67

When droughts do occur, it is important to A drought focuses public and political

discuss and record what was learned about attention in a way no exercise could, and

the weaknesses of the planned response. reveals physical, environmental, and

Drought preparedness can be improved economic interconnections that planners

through both drought simulation and might have been unable to imagine. The

experience. The first has the advantage of primary drawbacks of experiential learning

allowing the consideration of a broad range are that it requires loss or failure, and it is

of droughts, but the disadvantage that it will based on one specific event. Agencies may

never have the urgency of a real drought. be reluctant to document their learning

because to do so might seem to them the

admission of error. Alternatives

unacceptable before a drought may now be

implementable.

Water resources experts have advocated multidisciplinary, multiobjective, multipurpose water

resources planning on a watershed basis for decades. The DPS method is built on the principles 

of water resources planning developed by leading universities and tested by federal agencies since

1936. The DPS method updates and modifies those principles to make them more suitable for

regional and tactical studies. The usefulness of the method should be expanded as experience in

non-drought water management cases increases, and new developments in software make it

possible to fulfill the promise of “shared vision models” at an even higher plane.
68 EXERCISE, UPDATE AND USE THE PLAN 
10

CONCLUSION 69

There are at least twenty-five separate water programs, governed by more than two hundred

federal rules, regulations and laws.

Peter Rogers (America’s Water, 1993)

Traditional responses to water supply problems, such as construction of major water projects, 

are limited today by economic, environmental, and social concerns ... there is a shift in 

emphasis to improved operations and management of the existing facilities and systems and

transfers of rights to new, more efficient uses.

Western Governors Association, Report on the May 16-18, 1991 Park City Workshop

(Natural resources policy making is) “... a fluid, anarchic world of professionals, unmoored 

from the voters, seeking ideas that will solve problems, many of which lack clear outlines ...”

Kai Lee (Compass and Gyroscope, 1993)

 CONCLUSION

To produce more from our existing water professions can improve the chances that the

infrastructure, we must pursue more team will be successful.

sophisticated policies and operational

procedures, coordinated among many To overcome the fractiousness of multiple

agencies. The cleverness that secures these agencies and stakeholders, individual team

gains will probably mean that water members must be results oriented. That

management policies will be more difficult means that staff professionals must accept a

for the average citizen to understand. personal responsibility for regional progress

The DPS method can help. It adds the agency missions. And it means that

illustrative and analytical power of the shared stakeholders and advocates must compare

vision model to water resources principles possible but imperfect solutions to the status

solidly established in theory and practice. quo - the no improvement alternative. 

But a good method does not obviate the need

for excellent water managers; the DPS In the near term, this means that DPS team

method cannot work without them. members must be carefully selected to obtain

A truly interdisciplinary team is necessary; integrity. In the longer term, it means that

that means not only a team well schooled in schools and agencies must work together to

the many requisite fields of learning, but one make sure that people of this caliber will

in which each professional recognizes that apply themselves to these problems.

the perspectives and analytic tools of other

while fulfilling their obligation to pursue

this mix of leadership, scholarship, and
70 CHECKLIST 

DPS PLANNING PROCESS CHECKLIST

The seven steps of the DPS process are conducted iteratively; that is, the team will go through the

sequence of steps more than once, decreasing the breadth but increasing the depth of their analysis in

each iteration. The checklist below portrays the DPS study process as it might occur over time. The

sequence of events will vary from study to study because some tasks (such as new environmental and

economic studies) may not be instituted until a need for them is demonstrated. Evidence for that may

come in the initial workshop of one DPS, but may not come until the preliminary analysis of 

alternatives is done in another DPS.

Clearly, steps one and two dominate the early part of the study, and the seventh step occurs at the end 

and after the study is complete. But team members will discuss alternatives from the first day, and

redefine decision criteria and planning objectives as they learn more about the status quo and the 

nature of alternatives. Steps 4 and 5 are by nature the most iterative. The generation of a very long 

list of alternatives is important because it helps assure that no options have been overlooked and helps

broaden “ownership” of the process because it allows all DPS members to submit their ideas for

consideration. But before any alternative is developed in more detail, the DPS team should apply

screening criteria to all alternatives. Screening is the first iteration of Step 5, evaluation of 

alternatives. Screening will eliminate the ideas that do not address the planning objectives, or that 

have been shown to be ineffective. It will also identify alternatives that are incomplete and need 

further development to be evaluated at any level. The alternatives that pass through the screen can be

formulated (second iteration of Step 4) in more detail.

 A DPS begins with a precipitating event that establishes the need and provides the resources to

conduct a DPS. The initiative can begin with a political mandate, leadership within a management

agency, or inquiries from stakeholders or advocacy groups

 The convening agency makes a preliminary identification of decision makers, stakeholders, advocacy

groups, and independent experts and writes letters inviting them to attend an initial problem 

identification workshop. In the letter, the agency asks for a commitment from decision makers to

empower the DPS process

 An initial workshop is held. The purposes of the workshop are to:

! define the range and severity of drought problems facing the region

! list additional decision makers, stakeholders, advocacy groups and independent experts that should

be involved in the DPS (the list can be compiled by filling in Table II, page 22).

! identify the conditions necessary to secure the necessary commitment from decision makers to

empower the DPS process

! establish that drought impacts constitute a significant regional problem and that it is the actions of

the workshop participants that will reduce drought impacts in future droughts (if the facts do not

support that finding, then the DPS may not be required)
CHECKLIST 71

! identify additional sources for information, both in the form of written reports and personal

expertise

! develop an initial organization of workshop participants into circles of influence

! define the geographic limits and time horizons (planning period) of the study

! determine if there are other strategic or emergency water management efforts

 Review existing reports on regional droughts and the subject of water management for drought 

(agency reports, news stories, university research papers, journal articles, publications and proceedings 

of organizations such as the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), American Water Works

Association (AWWA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

At the first or second workshop, the DPS team would:

 Determine the broad goals for managing water during drought (such as economic efficiency, equity,

environmental protection) and make a preliminary determination of the criteria decision makers will 

use to determine whether the recommended plan from the DPS team meets these broad goals

 Develop specific planning objectives and constraints (if any) related to each of the applicable water

management purposes

 Identify the performance measures that managers and stakeholders use to judge the adequacy of water

management systems

 List the types of effects of water management decisions, how they are related to decision criteria, 

and how they could be measured

 At this point, in more intensive DPS’s, the team may initiate an issues study. The purpose of the

study is to document the political issues that underlie the criteria that decision makers will use to 

accept, reject or modify the DPS team’s recommendations.

 develop a shared vision model of the status quo based on existing reports, specialized water 

resources models, and interviews with DPS team members. The model should diagram and quantify 

the relationships between stakeholders’ and advocacy groups’ concerns and the availability of water at 

a specific place and time. It should also diagram and quantify the relationship between the availability 

of water and water management decisions under the current set of institutions and infrastructure. The

status quo includes the current set of water management institutions and infrastructure and probable

future changes initiated outside the DPS (for example, the effects of national plumbing codes on

municipal water use, or the effects on water supply from future infrastructure investments justified and

implemented outside the DPS).

 consult the National Drought Atlas and other sources to gauge how likely it is that the drought of

record will be eclipsed by larger droughts within the planning horizon

 consult the Atlas and other sources to determine how likely it is that future droughts will have a

different geographic focus or starting month, or longer duration.
72 CHECKLIST 

 select the appropriate design drought(s) to test the adequacy of existing and proposed drought plans

 model the performance measures, constraints, objectives identified in step 2.

 In more intensive DPS’s, the team may commission new surface and ground water modelling 

studies that use specialized computer models distinct from the shared vision model. The team may 

also commission demand element studies to determine potential future use of water for each water

management purpose. If the team expects that some alternatives may hurt some stakeholders and help

others, environmental and economic studies should be instituted now. The studies can determine the

change in the magnitude and distribution of economic and environmental effects associated with 

changes (from the amounts provided under the status quo) in the quantity of water delivered for each

water management purpose.

 commission hydrologic studies to develop more elaborate synthetic inflow data sets, or “natural 

flow” data sets

 At a workshop, or through another group process such as the Delphi process (page 16):

 generate an exhaustive (uncensored and uncriticized) list of alternatives

 screen the alternatives to determine if they are complete and meet minimum standards of

effectiveness and acceptability

 determine whether the alternatives are strategic, tactical and emergency responses

 develop one or more tactical drought response plans, combining elements of the tactical alternatives

suggested. Tactical plans may differ from one another in degree or type. For example, two plans may

differ only in the trigger levels at which water use curtailment is imposed. But other alternatives 

might be radically different, such as the imposition of temporary price increases or water banks in lieu 

of curtailment plans. Early draft plans can be evaluated and reformulated though workshops or the

Delphi process.

 develop a shared vision model of each alternative plan that will be seriously considered.

 run the model(s) to measure the performance and effects of the alternatives under the conditions of 

the design drought(s).

 compare the effectiveness, acceptability, performance and effects of all the alternatives. Publish 

these results for review.

 hold a workshop to select the plan the DPS team will recommend. This may require more than one

meeting. If there is an alternative that requires little or no expense, hurts no stakeholder but helps 

some stakeholders, recommending a plan may be relatively easy. If that is not the case, then the DPS

team must compare the effects of each alternative within each account. If an alternative takes 

something from a stakeholder but is more economically efficient and environmentally sound, then the

DPS team may decide to recommend the alternative, after modifying it to mitigate the loss or 

compensate the losing stakeholder to assure the goal of equity is met. If an alternative is most

economically efficient but has adverse environmental impacts (or vice versa), then an additional round 
CHECKLIST 73

of reformulation and negotiation will be required, or the DPS team may elect to accept the status quo. 

The team may elect to do an incremental cost analysis of environmental mitigation measures to 

develop a more acceptable tradeoff between environmental and economic effects than either the status

quo or the previous alternatives produce.

 write a report that clearly explains the recommendations of the DPS team. The report should 

display the findings according to the steps in the process: problems and team members; criteria and

metrics; the status quo; alternatives; and the evaluation process.

 identify the actions that will be required to institute the recommended plan, including environmental

assessments, and the ratification necessary to institutionalize tactical and emergency plans.

 develop a clear, powerful presentation of the study team findings and present as a team to the 

decision makers who must approve the recommendations of the DPS team.

 given the approval of decision makers, develop partnering agreements and new regulations. It 

would be unusual for strategic changes to be implemented as a direct result of a DPS, but the team 

can identify the processes (such as legislative action) that would be required to institute strategic 

changes.

 negotiate and institutionalize an agreement to exercise and update the new plan on a regular basis

After the end of the study, the DPS team will:

 use an updated version of the shared vision model to conduct Virtual Drought Exercises

 implement the plan when droughts occur and document and record the lessons learned from the

application of these measures in a real drought.
74 CHECKLIST 
Index

75

agriculture ............... iv, 39, F-3-4, L-6-7

Alabama ................... B-5, N-2, N-7-8

Apalachicola ..................... B-5, N-4

appropriation ......... 34, D-1, D-3, H-5, M-8

Arizona .................. D-1, D-3, M-18-19

Atlanta ............................... 47

Atlas, National Drought ...... vii-viii, 39-40, 55

71, 75, G-1-2, G-4-5, L-3, M-18, Annex N G-1, M-10

AWRA ............................... 71

AWWA ........................... 44, 71

Best Management Practices .............. L-5

Boston .............. vi, 45, B-5, K-6, M-1-3

 M-13, M-17 Georgia .............................. B-5

Bureau of Reclamation .... 43, A-3, B-4, M-19

 N-8 Green ......... 6, 26, 65, A-2, B-3, C-2, L-6-7

California ............. iv, v, 25, 39, 46-47, 75

 D-1-3, F-5, H-5, I-4, I-5 groundwater ........ v, 7, 10, 40, 42, 45-46, 66

K-1, K-4, L-1-6, M-1-3, M-18 B-2, D-1-2, L-1-2, L-5-6, M-6, M-18

Cedar ............... 26, 65, M-1-3, M-11-14

Chatahoochee ......................... N-7

Clean Water Act ................. A-3, M-20

Colorado ................... M-1-3, M-18-20

communication ..... 15, 20, 44, 55, 64, B-5, H-2

 H-6, I-1-4, J-1, M-8 H-7

Connecticut River ..................... B-5

conservation ..................... iii-viii, 34

 42-45, 48-49, 74, A-3, B-1, B-4 Kanawha ....... 28, 31, 45, 59, 62, 66, M-1-5

D-1-2, F-4, I-5, K-1-6, L-4-6, M-7, M-10, N-8 Kennedy ............................. A-2

cooling water ...................... 36, M-8

coordination ...... 1, 3, 9, 21, 41, 43, 46-47, 49

 64, 66, A-2, K-4, M-11 Los Angeles ......................... L-4-5

Corps of Engineers ........ i, iii-iv, ix-x, xvii, 3

5, 28, 33, 40, 43 MAIN 6.0 ............... 48, K-4, K-6, M-13

47, 61, A-3-4, B-4-5 Marais des Cygnes-Osage ...... M-1-3, M-8-10

C-1, E-2, H-1, H-3-4, I-2 Massachusetts ........ 45, 47, B-5, K-2, M-13

K-1, M-4, M-6-7, M-10-11, N-1, N-8 minimum flow ................... 28, 30, 66

Delaware ........................... M-20

demand ...... 1, 8, 25, 27, 30-31, 43-45, 47, 49

 66, 72, F-2, H-2, I-2, J-3, K-1, K-3 National Weather Service ...... 43, G-4-5, K-3

 K-6, L-4, M-7, M-13-17 M-5, N-8

diversion ....................... D-1-2, G-2

drainage ............................. M-8

emergency ....... v, 2, 21-22, 39, 41-42, 71-73

 D-1, I-5, L-5, M-5, M-7

Extended Streamflow Forecasting ....... G-4-5

EPA ................................ A-3

fish and wildlife .............. 54, M-5, M-12

Flint ................................ B-5

flood ....... 9, 32, 39, 41, 43, 54, 55, A-2, A-4

Florida .......................... B-5, N-2

frequency .......... viii, 1, 7, 13, 26, 29-30, 34

 39, 40, 43, 47, F-5, G-1-2

G-5, K-2, N-2-5, N-7

Getches ............................... 11

 M-1, M-10-13

hydropower .... 9, 10, 21, 23, 28, 30, 32, 45, 52

 57, 60, 62, E-2, F-2, F-5, L-6-7

 M-3, M-5, M-8-9-10, M-16, M-19-20

indicators .................... v, 3, M-14-16

infrastructure ...... v, vii, 1, 2, 8, 59-60, 69, 71

Interior .......................... 54, M-19

James .......... 26-27, B-3, M-1, M-6-8, N-1

law ............. v, 9, 41-42, 54, 74, B-4, C-1

D-1-3, H-4, H-5, M-8, M-20

Los Angeles Times .................... L-4

Mississippi ....................... M-3, N-2

Missouri ................. B-4, M-3, M-8-10

navigation ............ 9, 22, 28-30, 32, 60, 62

B-2, F-4 F-5, M-5, M-10

New Mexico .......................... D-3
Index

76

NOAA .............................. N-2

North Carolina ............. iii, D-1, M-3, M-5

North Dakota ......................... B-4

Ohio ................... 40, G-5, M-3, N-1

Palmer Drought Index ............. 40, N-7-8

politics .................... 54, 74, B-1, I-1

Potomac ................... 47, 65, A-2, N-8

probability ............... 30, 39, 54-55, B-5

G-5-6, H-2, N-1-2 Virginia .......... B-2, B-3, D-1, M-3, M-6-8

problemshed ..................... vii, 10, 59

public ............... iii, vi-viii, 3, 6-7, 12, 14

16-20, 22-23, 34, 42-44 45, 65, B-2, M-6, M-8. M-12, M-18

47, 49, 54-55,59, 61, 66 Washington ........ v, 65, B-3, M-6, M-10-13

74, A-2, B-3, C-3, D-2, G-5, H-3 wastewater .... iii, 18, 22, 45, 46, B-1, K-3, K-4

H-5-7, I-1-5, J-2, K-3-5, M-8, M-14, M-18 water bank ................. 72, D-2-3, L-4-5

Public Trust Doctrine ................... D-2

recreation .................. 6-7, 9, 22, 28-30

32-33, 45, 52, 57, 60, 62 water supply ............. iii-v, viii, 2-3, 5-6, 9

D-2, E-2, F-1, F-4, M-3, M-5, M-8-19 14, 18, 21-22, 27-28, 33, 37, 41-42

riparian ........... 34, D-1, M-8, M-17, M-19

river basins .... xiv, 47, 65, A-2, B-5, M-1, M-6

 M-11-12 L-1, M-6, M-8, M-10, M-12-15, M-18

Rogers ............................ 17, 69

roles .................... H-3, L-1, M-18-19

Savannah .............................. iv

Seattle . . v, 44, 47, B-3, H-6, K-1, M-10-13, N-8

Section 22 .......................... M-18

Severe Sustained Drought ......... M-3, M-18

shared vision model ......... vii-viii, 11-12, 33

35, 37, 43, 45, 47-48, 55

57, 59-61, 64, 66, 69, 71-74

B-3, C-2-3, H-6-7, M-5, M-7-9, M-18

South Carolina ........................ D-1

South Dakota ......................... B-4

STELLA II® .... 15, C-1, C-3, H-7, M-6, M-13

 M-15-16, M-19

Susquehanna ............... M-1, M-3, M-18

Tacoma .................. v, 65, 66, M-10-13

Tennessee ............................ A-3

Texas ................................ 47

U.S. Geological Survey .... 43, M-3, M-5, M-18

N-7-8

Utah ................................ B-4

utilities ....... iii, 3, 10, 47, F-4, K-1, K-4, L-6

 M-6, M-18

Virginia Beach ...................... M-6-7

vulnerability ...... vi, 2-3, 17, 19-21, 39, 42-43

water quality ... iii, 1, 28, 32, 40, 46, 49, 52-53

 60, 62, K-6, M-3, M-5-6, M-17-18

 44, 45, 47-48, 54, 69, 71, A-2, A-4

 B-1, B-5, F-4-5, I-4, K-1-2, K-6

watershed . . 9, 10, 21, 40, 67, G-1, G-2-5, M-14

West Virginia .................... M-3, M-6

Western Governors Association ......... ix, 69

Western States Water Council .............. ix

wetlands ............................ M-19

White ............................ 22, M-3

Wilhite ............................... 59
List of Annexes

A - ORIGINS OF FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING GUIDANCE is a very 

brief overview of the decades of debate, research, and practical experience with Federal water

policy that produced comprehensive, usable guidance about how to meet conflicting water

management goals.

B - POLITICS, ADVOCACY GROUPS, AND WATER AGENCIES describes the difficulties

water agencies have in melding their analysis with the perspectives of elected officials and

advocacy groups, and offers practical advice for doing better.

C - COMPUTER MODELS OF WATER AND RELATED SYSTEMS raises and responds to

key issues in developing shared vision models.

D - WATER LAW AND DROUGHT lists eight significant water law issues, and the ways

different states are dealing with them.

E - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES and

F - ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES are not

treatises on economics or environmental sciences; these annexes address some practical

questions that were raised most frequently in the National Drought Study case studies about

how these fields fit into drought management.

G - HYDROLOGY explains basic concepts in drought hydrology

H - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION is a primer on the subject, with a description 

of how a shared vision model can help an ADR process.

I - DROUGHT AND THE PUBLIC includes a brief history of public involvement in water

resources and some practical lessons learned.

J - CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE describes the theory and 

practice that inspired this simple but effective idea.

K - FORECASTING WATER USE TO MANAGE WATER CONSERVATION explains 

what disaggregated water use forecasting is and how it can be used to make sure conservation

programs are more cost effective.

L - LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT 1987-1992 is a 7 page

summary of longer reports (NDS-5 and 6), with some additional new information.

M - THE PRINCIPAL NATIONAL DROUGHT STUDY CASE STUDIES includes 

thumbnail sketches of each case study.

N - THE NATIONAL DROUGHT ATLAS depicts the type of data in the Atlas and shows 

one way it can be used.

A-1

A - ORIGINS OF FEDERAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING GUIDANCE

The DPS method is a hybrid. Although based This contradicted the premise of multiobjective

on planning tools that have been used primarily water resources management, which is that 

to evaluate the feasibility of federal water water should be managed to produce the best

projects, the DPS method was used to evaluate balance of the intended objectives. 

the advisability of one short term operational Multiobjective evaluation procedures had been

plan over another, usually with a fairly modest integrated into the principles which guided 

federal interest. This annex will explain why federal water resources feasibility studies. In 

the federal guidelines were so influential and fact, scholars and water managers had tested 

will state how the DPS method differs from and applied several generations of water 

and co-exists with the latest federal planning resources planning methods; no other planning

principles. approaches had anywhere near the amount of

In the first year of the National Study of Water

Management During Drought, several The current federal method (Principles and

experienced water planners were asked to Guidance), however, had a very narrow plan

review the literature on water resources planning selection process; P&G call for the selection 

and propose specific drought planning of the plan that reasonably maximizes National

approaches. In addition, published and Economic Benefits (NED). Since there might 

unpublished preparedness methods developed or might not be a significant federal interest in

specifically for drought were reviewed. There regional droughts, it was clear that this would 

were two basic critical questions used in be an inappropriate condition for plan 

evaluating these approaches: selection. But, absent the simple NED

! Was the approach internally consistent and be embedded in the DPS planning method?

complete?

! Would the method reduce the negative

effects from drought?

The negative impacts of drought were the 

subject of television news almost nightly in

1988. The impacts cut across all the purposes 

of water management. Many could be 

expressed in economic terms, but others were

purely environmental or social. Investigations

conducted by the National Drought Study team

and others showed that most drought plans had

not been designed to reduce the effects of

drought; most were intended to ration 

shortages without regard to the impact

proportionate reductions would have on 

different water users.

testing and thought invested.

objective, what decision making rules should 

The advantage of the federal planning

principles. The very brief history of federal

water resources planning that follows is meant 

to introduce readers unfamiliar with that 

history to the investment, testing, and high 

level criticism that have shaped and refined the

federal water resources planning and evaluation

procedures. Accordingly, developments related

to these aspects are emphasized in what 

follows. Other matters, (which were of great

national interest and concern at one time), such

as proposed realignment of water resources

responsibilities in government and/or creation 

of additional valley authorities, are omitted

because they are irrelevant to the purposes of

this report.
A-2

The requirement to perform a benefit-cost coordination between agencies in the planning

analysis in a federal water resource project of water resources development in large river

study originated in the 1936 Flood Control basins.

Act. The federal government was authorized 

to participate in the construction of flood In May 1950, the Interagency Committee on

control projects if “the benefits to whomsoever Water Resources issued a report known as 

they may accrue are in excess of the estimated “The Green Book,” which, although not

cost.” This was a clear expression of the mandatory, was influential among the agencies

federal interest. This requirement of concerned in establishing sounder policies on

“economic justification” was subsequently controversial matters such as benefit 

extended to other water resource project estimation, discount rates, and allocation of

purposes. Interpretation of the economic costs. It also stated in general terms that “For

justification requirement resulted in the federal projects, a comprehensive public

development and evolution of various viewpoint should be taken.”

analytical procedures and the promulgation of a

number of policy statements, both formal and In the late 1950's, the Harvard Water Program

informal. developed a body of thinkers who considered

During the New Deal era, executive branch project feasibility to be too narrow, and 

policies favored the use of secondary and favored multiobjective project evaluation. This

intangible benefits to evaluate projects. These method required trade-offs between all classes

benefits were believed to embody the social of benefits. This intellectual stimulus had farreasons why water resource projects were reaching effects. President Kennedy, after only

wanted. As the recession, and later the war seven months in office, sent proposed 

came to an end, the Bureau of the Budget no legislation to Congress creating the Water

longer accepted the use of these benefits. By Resources Council, with extensive powers. An

the early 1950's, economic justification ad hoc Water Resources Council in 1962 

procedures relied almost entirely on “national helped develop Senate Document 97, which

economic efficiency,” i.e., a favorable benefit- revised standards for benefit-cost analysis in

cost ratio using benefits as identified from the ways expected to justify more projects.

national economy’s perspective.

There was soon a perceived need for paradigm of continually building more flood

coordinating activity between the federal protection as flood damages increased was

agencies and the states. This was done initially replaced nationally by the concept of providing

by river basin committees, created by interstate flood plain management to minimize flood

compact. These were the forerunners of the damages, and of resorting to flood control

later river basin commissions. However, new construction only when necessary. The North

ideas now began to arise. This was an era of Atlantic Regional study of the Corps provided 

rapid, large-scale water resources development. a testing ground for multiobjective planning. 

Interest in water resources rose both in And finally, a long-standing controversy on

government and in academic circles. There proposed water supply improvements on the

was competition among federal water agencies, Potomac River had showed that operational

and significant discrepancies in such matters as coordination between various systems

the methods of estimating benefits and concerned could make very large 

allocating costs among project functions. improvements in safe yield, obviating the need

There was also a perceived need for greater

the basic economic approach to water resources

In the field of flood control, the simple 
A-3

in this case for a whole series of additional process corresponds closely to the

reservoirs. recommended approach for DPS as described 

On the national political level, the great

environmental movement starting in the sixties Beginning in the late 1970's, federal water

led to passage of the National Environmental resource development programs came under

Policy Act of 1969, and the Federal Water criticism, especially within the Reagan

Pollution Control Act of 1972 (now known as administration. In 1983, the P&S was replaced

the Clean Water Act). Under the Clean Water by “Economic and Environmental Principles 

Act, the programs of EPA were made and Guidelines for Water and Related Land

completely independent of the planning criteria Resources Implementation Studies” (P&G). 

of the Water Resources Council and of the The P&G apply in all Corps of Engineers,

general idea of balancing benefits against costs. Bureau of Reclamation, Soil Conservation

For water agencies other than EPA, in 1973, implementation studies for civil works water

the now formally constituted Water Resources project plans. 

Council issued “Principles and Standards for

Planning Water and Related Land Resources” Most of the principles of the P&S were carried

(P&S). The principal new feature of this over into the P&G, except that, under the 

document was to require that project plans be P&G, National Economic Development (NED)

prepared separately to emphasize national benefits are more important in plan selection

economic development and to enhance the than in the P&S. Under the P&G, planners are

quality of the environment. Other objectives to not required to develop an Environmental

be recognized were regional development and Quality plan. The recommended plan is 

social well-being, but specific plans for those (unless an exception is granted by the Assistant

purposes were not required. Both positive and Secretary of the Army for Civil Works) the 

negative effects upon each purpose were to be one that reasonably maximizes net NED

displayed. benefits (consistent with protecting the nation’s

There was no clear concept as to how to maximize NED is subject to environmental 

reconcile divergences between environmental laws and constraints in a process best described

and economic goals. The main policy was that as constrained optimization.

they should be explicitly recognized, compared,

and considered in project formulation. The four accounts into which project effects 

Specifically, for reasons of environmental are to be classified are:

quality, agencies could select a plan other than

the one that maximized national economic ! National Economic Development (NED)

benefit. This P&S represented the further ! Environmental Quality (EQ)

extension of the ideas of the Harvard Water ! Regional Economic Development (RED) 

Program. The P&S required a six step iterative ! Other Social Effects (OSE)

planning process, as follows: (1) Specify

problems and opportunities; (2) inventory and The P&G and its four accounts system of

assess water and related land conditions; (3) displaying information provide a 

formulate alternative plans; (4) evaluate effects comprehensive, consistent, and systematic

of each alternative; (5) compare the alternatives methodology for evaluating plan impacts. Its

based on effects; and (6) make basic theory is very similar to that of the P&S. 

recommendations. Of course, this general In either case, the undoubtedly sound 

in Chapter 2 of this report.

Service, and Tennessee Valley Authority

environment). The selection of projects which
A-4

principles do not avoid the inherent difficulties Besides the issuance of the P&G, two other

of quantifying many of the non-economic developments have considerably changed the

values encountered in water resources planning, conduct of water resources planning. First, the

particularly in drought planning. Reagan administration eliminated funding for 

There is a conceptual problem related to DPS most of the River Basin Commissions. This

which remains unresolved. The Corps of change increased the difficulties of assuring

Engineers, and most other water agencies, use effective interagency cooperation. Secondly, 

the maximization of NED as the objective the passage of the Water Resources

when planning a new or revised federal project. Development Act in 1986 increased the costThis is mandatory. However, the states and sharing requirements of most non-federal

municipalities, which between them will be partners, including non-federal contributions to

required to pay for water supply costs feasibility studies. Non-federal interests are

(including federal construction costs), are now required to assume the full cost of water

justifiably concerned with regional economic supply improvements, even though they take 

development (RED), as explained in the main the form of construction or reconstruction of

report and Annex F. For impacts on which federal reservoirs. Although it may be argued

evaluation of NED and RED differ markedly, that the regional effects of a major drought are

this difference may have to be recognized and analogous to those of a major flood, the federal

covered in negotiation, since the P&G government has not assumed the same

procedures cannot be held to be automatically responsibility for drought control that it has for

applicable to planning by states and their flood control. Therefore, federal planning for

subdivisions. With respect to federal DPS must be undertaken without any 

participation, the principles of the P&G are substantial federal financial contribution to

fully applicable in the DPS, although the remedial projects.

cooperative procedures used are somewhat

different from those used in project planning 

by the Corps.

the Water Resources Council and inactivated
B-1

B - POLITICS, ADVOCACY GROUPS, AND WATER AGENCIES

There are characteristic differences in the way negotiation among members on many 

elected officials, advocacy groups (such as collateral issues. This might include budgets,

environmental or growth management groups), taxes, crime prevention, education, air 

and water agency staffs engage in the conduct pollution, growth, traffic management, fire

of water management. The way these fighting, trash collection, waste management,

dissimilar patterns mesh can itself influence the health care, and relations with other

effectiveness of water management and drought governments.

preparedness. Two hypothetical examples help

illustrate this: The importance of intergovernmental and

Agencies and elected officials. A regulatory the creation of commissions to manage those

agency might refuse to grant a permit for a relationships. However, the choreography of

new city reservoir, arguing that the same elected officials, environmentalists and water

level of water service reliability can be agency staffs in water management is often left 

achieved at less cost through water to chance. Successful interactions are 

conservation. But the mayor of the city celebrated because of their rarity. Anecdotal

might support the reservoir, because it would evidence indicates that successful interaction is 

also provide the city bargaining power in a function of the personalities involved.

negotiations to secure regional cooperation 

on wastewater, transportation and police This annex highlights some types of situations

protection. In this case, the difference in that were most often described as problematic 

approach is in conceptualization; because of by water managers, elected officials and 

their more narrowly focused role, some water political appointees, and environmentalists

resources agencies may not consider the during the National Drought Study. The

mayor’s decision criteria. Is there a solution discussion of typical situations is followed by

which can address the concerns of both the suggestions for addressing those situations

agency and the mayor? If there is, it is developed with the U.S. Advisory Commission

unlikely to be identified unless a conscious on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) and 

effort is made to bridge the two ways of other social science experts. 

seeing the problem.

Agencies and advocacy groups.

Environmental groups gained their initial

leverage in water resources through 

legislative lobbying and the courts to stop

water projects, not through collaborative

planning for water supply solutions and the

operation of existing projects. But, getting

new laws and court rulings can take a long

time and a lot of money, and the results may

not please any stakeholders. A similar risk

applies in legislative action, which requires

majorities to be assembled through 

interagency “meshing” has been recognized by

Agencies and elected officials.

Situation 1. Citizens turn to elected officials

for help during drought, but the officials 

have not been involved in agency planning

efforts.

Political involvement in water management is

most intense during the authorization of capital

intensive water projects or the imposition of

regulatory statutes. Years may pass between 

the signing of a bill and the next severe 

drought. During that time, water uses may
B-2

become more diverse and intense. Drought holistically. Division of responsibility typically

plans, if any are developed, may be done reflects one or more of three fundamental

agency by agency. Too often, it requires the conceptual divides: surface water and

onset of a drought for these issues to be raised groundwater, water quantity and quality, and 

to a political level, and as a consequence, the water management purposes (such as

elected officials learn of the insufficiencies just irrigation and navigation).

after their constituents ask them to make the

system address their needs. Elected officials Droughts reintegrate these conceptual

cannot defend a non-responsive system, but distinctions. A shortage of surface water could

their criticism, often seen as scapegoating by be addressed by pumping groundwater; low

agency staff, may hurt agency morale. flows reduce the capacity to dilute effluents; 

Moreover, water management decisions irrigators and navigators must find a way to

developed and implemented at a primarily share scarce water. Where and how is the

political level during a drought may not serve problem managed holistically? Organizational

the best long term interests of the region. charts show where integration of the missions 

Situation 2. Elected officials have not

communicated broad water management

goals to agency staff. This is the least true at

the federal level. The Economic and

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for

Water and Related Land Resources

Implementation Studies (the P&G) spell out

what the President and Congress want federal Solutions

agencies to consider in evaluating water

projects. These are general principles and

guidelines; planning objectives are developed

for each study. But few cities and counties 

have developed analogous guidelines. How

then, can a regional drought preparedness team

determine the criteria that several mayors, state

senators, city council members, and the 

governor will use in determining whether to

support and implement a drought plan? The

traditional method is to rely on the political

acumen and articulateness of the agency staffer

reporting to each elected official, but those

skills vary from staffer to staffer, as does their

access to political leaders.

Situation 3. Agencies have not kept elected

officials advised of new drought

vulnerability. This occurs not because an

agency fails to fulfill its mission, but because

agency missions encompass pieces of water

management, and the vulnerability is often

apparent only when a water system is viewed

of individual agencies occurs. It is generally at 

a political level, such as the President’s 

Cabinet or a legislative water commission. But

the small staffs at this level are often too far

removed from field data or too engaged in the

pressure of other issues to analyze trends for

potential problems.

As with most studies, the agency staff engaged 

in the DPS’s were asked to keep their political

bosses informed of the team’s efforts, and 

letters were sent to officials at critical junctures

in the studies by the study leaders. Two

measures were used to address the three typical

situations described above, and the DPS teams

felt that they improved the effectiveness of the

relationship between agencies and elected

officials:

1. Political scientists were asked to conduct

surveys to determine what elected officials

expected from drought preparedness efforts. 

The U.S. Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) conducted

two such studies. In Virginia, Vivian Watts (a

former Virginia state legislator and Secretary 

of Transportation) met with the Virginia

legislature and Virginia water experts and 

wrote a report that explained the position of 

each side on the issue of the development of a
B-3

state water policy. Her study increased the 2. In the Green River DPS, a “demonstration”

understanding each side had of the other’s workshop was held at the close of the study,

position, and helped support movement within after technical experts had engaged in a Virtual

the Virginia water community to revisit the Drought. The demonstration workshop, shorter

issue of a state water policy. The Virginia and less technical than previous DPS 

Water Commission, a group of state legislators, workshops, was meant to show the broad

met on July 21, 1993 to consider ideas - implications of the DPS agreements to staff

including those of the James River DPS team - directly engaged with mayors and governors. 

for a more proactive state water role. Whereas the technical workshops had focused 

Testimony was offered by National Drought on hydrology and technical models, the

Study representatives, and the shared vision demonstration workshop addressed issues of

model was demonstrated. public relations and regional cooperation and

In the Seattle area, David Harrison, Helen create a working, regional partnership.

Birss, and Dean Ruiz of the University of

Washington’s Northwest Policy Center

interviewed the mayor of Seattle and Seattle

Council Members, as well as water agency 

staff in an effort to describe political and water

agency perspectives on regional water

management. Other DPS team members were

pleased with these study reports because they:

described the regional political context more

fully than any individual agency staffer

understood it;

represented the views of each elected official

evenly, avoiding the problem of political

interpretations by misinformed, biased,

inarticulate, or unempowered agency staffers;

brought the DPS to the attention of the

officials. The interviews provided an

opportunity for a limited, but informal 

briefing on the study in progress. (The

political scientists had been thoroughly 

briefed on the study before conducting the

interviews.)

There were still concerns about whether elected

officials had spoken openly about hot regional

issues, but the information from these political

studies was used to supplement information the

DPS team received from more general sources

such as the local press and agency briefings.

showed how technical staff had been able to

Agencies and Advocacy Groups

Situation 4. Advocacy groups and agencies

are not used to working together. Prior to 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

of 1969, water agencies had much less legal

obligation to disclose environmental impacts to

the public, including environmental groups.

Despite the considerable investment of time,

dollars, and personnel that participation efforts

received during the 1970's and 1980's, many

conflicts over resource management issues

continued to land in court. Collaborative

planning efforts between environmental groups

and agencies are still unusual. In some cases,

environmental groups may consider it in the 

best interests of the world and their 

organization to avoid collaboration, fearing that

financial and personal relationships could

diminish their role as critics.

Solution

While legislative and judicial intervention may

have been the best use of limited advocacy

resources in the dam building era, some

environmental groups are changing their 

method of operation. For example, Edward

Osann and David Conrad, then with the 

National Wildlife Federation, developed the
B-4

conservation plans for the latest increment of The DPS method names advocacy groups as 

the Central Utah Project, a Bureau of one of the four types of participants that should

Reclamation project first authorized in 1956 be involved in any drought study. The 

(Monberg, May 14, 1992) DPS teams should “Circles of Influence” method of managing 

recognize three things: study participation permits advocacy groups to

1. Planning collaboratively with the main requirement for membership in the 

environmental groups is the only way to inner Circle A is the ability and willingness to

fully consider their points of view. work on the study. 

Alternative points of view raised late in a

study must not only prove themselves, but

overcome the momentum that established

ideas have developed within the team. 

Moreover, time and funding constraints

discriminate against the consideration of last

minute ideas.

2. Planning collaboratively with

environmental groups is a good way to 

assure that environmentalists understand nonenvironmental planning objectives and share

the responsibility for addressing those

objectives.

3. Environmentalists generally offer a 

broader perspective on river basin

management issues because they have not 

had to pursue agency objectives, which are

usually fairly narrow. Because of this, they

may help a DPS team think holistically and

become results oriented, rather than process

oriented.

4. Environmental groups are not all the 

same. Some have deliberately chosen to

become collaborative, some to stay within 

the role of critic, and some, like the Nature

Conservancy, which buys land and sets it

aside for environmental purposes, to find

solutions that require neither collaboration or

confrontation. Unless there is an ongoing or

imminent adjudicative relationship, DPS 

teams should reach out to environmental

groups that can help or block a study and

negotiate a suitable level of involvement.

become as involved as their resources allow; 

Situation 5. Collaborative planning is

impeded because an advocacy group could 

be a potential adversary in court. This 

applies to adversaries who are not advocacy

groups, as well. The DPS and other

collaborative planning processes are rational

methods; the “best” decision requires trust and 

a full sharing of information and objectives,

including uncertainties about data and

relationships. The judicial process is

adversarial; a champion for each adversary

presents one side as vigorously as possible and

diminishes opposing views through whatever

legal means that champion can muster. The

“best” decision is made by a third party who 

has heard all sides and been informed of past

case law. Information sharing in a judicial

process is called “discovery” and involves 

court ordered access to an adversary’s files. 

Thus, pursuing a DPS can diminish the chance 

of success in an adversarial process, and vice

versa. Alternatives that stakeholders choosing

between collaboration and lawsuits should

consider include:

1. Do both. In some cases, stakeholders 

have pursued both approaches at once. 

During the recent drought on the Missouri

River, Corps of Engineers and the Missouri

River basin states collaborated in a review of

the operation policies of the Corps Main 

Stem Missouri River reservoirs, while at the

same time North Dakota, South Dakota and

Montana brought suit on related issues in

federal court in Billings, Montana. No study

has been done to estimate the effect one

approach has on the other.
B-5

2. Formally discontinue the suit. Alabama

and Florida agreed to stop pursuing a judicial

solution and signed a memorandum with

Georgia and the Corps of Engineers to

conduct the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River

Basins Comprehensive Study. If the

participants in an active or imminent water 

suit believe that a collaborative process 

would increase the probability of a mutually 

desirable outcome at a lower transactional

cost, then they might consider a formal

process, developed with the help of 

alternative dispute resolution experts, that

defines the conditions of a cooperative joint

study. The study process can then proceed

deliberately until one or the other partner

feels that judicial proceedings are

unavoidable.

3. Create a new relationship. The Water

Supply Citizens Advisory Committee in

Massachusetts is a model for how adversarial

relationships can become more productive

without a loss in the diversity of values

represented in water management decisions. 

In brief, a group of environmentalists, citizen

activists and academicians sought to block 

the plans of the Metropolitan District

Commission (MDC) (supported by the Corps

of Engineers in its Northeastern United States

Water Supply Study) to divert water from the

Connecticut River to supply Boston. They

argued that it was unfair for Boston to create

transbasin diversions before managing its water

demands. The opponents metamorphosed

through several organizations from 1969 

(Connecticut River Information Clearinghouse)

to the Water Supply Citizens Advisory

Committee (WSCAC) in 1980. WSCAC 

played an important role in the creation of the

Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

(MWRA) in 1984, which took over the

responsibility for delivery and distribution of

water for 46 communities from the MDC.

Of greatest interest to other communities is the

current relationship between MWRA and

WSCAC. MWRA provides funding for office

space, expenses and staff for WSCAC. The 

staff is answerable only to WSCAC, not

MWRA. WSCAC directors can access 

MWRA computer files using a WSCAC

computer. MWRA consults with WSCAC 

while developing management strategies, so 

that published strategies have already received

the benefit of an environmental perspective. 

WSCAC has its own network of advocates and

experts, so a pattern of communication and 

trust similar to the Circles of Influence has 

been established. 

C-1

C - COMPUTER MODELS OF WATER AND RELATED SYSTEMS

The most visible innovation of the National academics. The first copies of STELLA II®

Drought Study is the way computers were used were shipped in late 1985. STELLA II® is 

in developing strategic and tactical plans. This most simply described as a visual spreadsheet

innovation continues the long tradition of for systems analysis where the process being

computer usage within the Corps of Engineers modeled can be presented as pictures as well as

that began in the early 1950's. Conversations equations. STELLA II® is one of many

between William Whipple, who was then object-oriented simulation modeling

executive officer to the Assistant Chief of environments available commercially. 

Engineers, and John von Neumann, a STELLA II® was selected over other available

mathematician at Princeton’s Institute for software because of its unique combination of

Advanced Study, resulted in the Corps using simplicity, power, and cost-effectiveness.

computers to calculate river stages and 

reservoir operating plans. Computers have This shift in modeling paradigm raised a 

since been applied by the Corps to all aspects number of issues that were addressed in the

of their multi-disciplinary analysis, including National Drought Study and which will impact

hydraulics, hydrology, economics, ecology, computer usage in the future.

law, and decision making.

The contribution of the National Drought Study

to this tradition is the use of new software to

bridge the gap between specialized water The development of tactical and strategic

models and the decision making process used drought plans requires carefully defining the

by people. The computer software used in objectives and constraints of stakeholders and

these efforts can be described as a decision makers in a region, evaluation of the

user-friendly, graphical simulation tool. This status quo, generation of alternatives, and

software makes use of icons to represent selection of alternatives based upon the

simple, physical objects or concepts. The objectives and constraints. Although these 

model builder selects from a palette of icons to tasks can be accomplished without computers

construct the objects required to describe the (as they often were in the past), planners can 

system, such as reservoirs, streamflows, be aided significantly by developing computer

releases, and demands. When the basic system models. Such models allow planners to 

configuration is defined, the modeler then evaluate a larger number of variables and more

defines system operating policies and provides complex relationships than would otherwise be

site specific information such as streamflows, possible. Computer models allow planners to

demands, and economic impacts. incorporate important information and data 

such as long streamflow sequences, hydrologic

The specific computer program used to and hydraulic concerns, economic impacts,

implement water resource system models biological impacts and other concerns.

developed in the National Drought Study is Computers allow large amounts of information

STELLA II®, produced by High Performance and data to be efficiently organized and

Systems of Hanover, New Hampshire. retrieved, and perform calculations quickly.

STELLA II® grew out of a need for better

simulation languages for use in business and

Issue 1: When are computer models

appropriate for drought planning?
C-2

Issue 2: What is a “shared vision model”?

The term “shared vision model” is used to individuals representing these interests, 

describe a model constructed in a process in generate agreement on which problems to

which stakeholders and decision makers work address, and then develop ways in which the

cooperatively to include factors and elements status quo can be improved. Shared vision

of interest to them. It can be contrasted with models provide an ideal tool for this process. 

modeling efforts in which a small number of Other characteristics that suggest the use of

technical experts develop models without truly shared vision models in water planning include

considering who will use their model and how the need to: gain the confidence of 

it would be used. The construction of shared stakeholders and decision makers; provide a

vision models requires computing environments productive negotiation environment to aid in

that are extremely user-friendly and easy to resource planning and allocation; obtain 

learn, yet powerful enough to capture detailed information about resource operation

interactions between the elements being and management; convey technical information 

modeled. to a large number of non-technical participants;

Shared vision models allow stakeholders and dynamic and flexible vision of resource

decision makers to better understand a water management.

resource by cooperatively developing and

exploring management alternatives. These

models provide a computing environment in

which model assumptions can be easily

understood and modified, impacts of decisions The experience generated during the National

can be evaluated, and alternative futures can be Drought Study suggests that a variety of

explored in real time. They allow stakeholders approaches to building shared vision models 

and decision makers to influence the planning can work. The approach that was used in the

and modeling process from the outset and to Green River DPS typifies the process.

share their understanding of resource

management. When a shared vision is created, ! First, stakeholders and decision makers who

inaccuracies, improper assumptions, and would be impacted by the DPS effort were

misconceptions can be identified, thus identified. These individuals pointed out

preventing their incorporation into the planning problems in the region, the institutions and

process. individuals that were responsible for addressing

Issue 3. When should “shared vision

models” be used?

Shared vision models should be used in every

important water resources evaluation where ! Training in model construction was provided

there is a gap between what stakeholders and to individuals representing the stakeholders and

decision makers need to know and what they decision makers. This training occurred in two

are capable of learning from specialized steps: instructors traveled to each DPS site to

models and databases that address parts of the introduce basic modeling concepts and a week

decision domain. Drought planning today long workshop was held introducing more

requires the consensus of an ever growing advanced topics.

number of often competing and conflicting

interests. A key to successful water resources

planning and management is to assemble

and develop, document, and maintain a 

Issue 4. How are shared vision models

developed?

these problems, and constructive steps that 

could be taken to address the problems. These

problems were then translated into study

objectives.
C-3

! Interviews were conducted with each agency developed by affected parties regarding model

representing stakeholders and decision makers. use and distribution. A single agency should 

At these interviews, participants were asked to be responsible for model distribution and

define their role in water management and their maintenance. This agency should be viewed 

relationship with other agencies. They were by all party members as unbiased and 

encouraged to define their particular uses of technically competent. Permanent changes to 

models and describe how models could benefit the model would occur only when the

their agency. stakeholders and decision makers agreed that 

! Based on these responses, a prototype model representation. The model would be reviewed 

was constructed. When the prototype was at frequent intervals to ensure its 

complete (including the concerns of appropriateness and correctness and new

stakeholders and decision makers), this model versions distributed. Procedures should be

was demonstrated to each group. developed to provide guidance on interpretation

Modifications to the models were made to of model results. Interpretation of model 

incorporate the comments and suggestions. results for consumption by the general public 

! Finally, a group workshop was held to members of the partnering agreement. Parties

demonstrate and test the model and to ensure not respecting the agreement or using the 

that the interests and concerns of the affected model in an unconstructive fashion would lose

parties were contained in the model. access to the model.

Issue 5: What are the potential liabilities of Issue 6: How do shared vision models

shared vision models? interface with existing models?

A concern of some stakeholders and decision Shared vision models, such as those built with

makers associated with the National Drought STELLA II® in the National Drought Study, 

Study was that shared vision models could be will not replace many of the existing models

misused by groups or individuals. Because the used for water management. In professional

models are easy to use and to modify, results settings dealing with public projects and public

generated by altered or “infected” models could impacts, many important issues remain that 

be used to misinform the public or to obscure must be evaluated by experts and for which

the true implications of water management public debate can add little. A role will remain

issues. Although these concerns are real, a for less user-friendly models that address

purpose of developing a shared vision model is specific technical issues and whose results and

to include a wider range of individuals in the implications do not need to be explained to

planning process and to increase the level of non-experts.

understanding of all parties. To limit access

significantly would reduce the value of the However, many important questions must be

model. Instead, the model would be addressed in a more public forum and the

distributed to all interested and appropriate development of shared vision models must

parties, but with access to the model would facilitate the necessary public debate. The

come responsibilities. output of more conventional models may well

A number of potential actions were suggested models.

in the National Drought Study to address these

issues. First, a partnering agreement should be

the changes allowed a more accurate

or press should be coordinated with all 

prove valuable as input for shared vision 
C-4
D - WATER LAW AND DROUGHT

A drought preparedness study, which includes in the east. It provides for the allocation of

joint action by Federal, state and municipal water use privileges by the state, superseding 

agencies, necessarily involves a complex legal the original rights of riparian owners. More 

context. This context includes not only the than half of the eastern states now have a

major types of water law differentiated regulatory permit system. 

between the eastern and the western states, but

the cases where the river basin in question The prior appropriation system is simple in

comprises states using both systems. Also, it principle, but rigid in application, particularly

includes conditions of water management not with respect to drought conditions. If an

only during normal times, but also during appropriator is junior, he will lose his water in

times of drought emergency, when, in many favor of the senior, with no consideration given

states, emergency powers of some agency of to the value to society of the use of the water. 

government may become effective. Drought As water needs change, the strict prior

planning must start with a tentative assumption appropriation doctrine does not work well to

that the existing legal structure will continue; accommodate new or better requirements. 

but if circumstances warrant, changes in law Also, how do we deal with water uses which

may be recommended. Water law is changing need no diversion, such as instream flows? 

and evolving across the United States. Some Further, the basic appropriations systems does

tendencies of change in applicable law are not encourage water conservation, since water

noted in this annex and may suggest the rights not fully used may be lost. However,

desirability and practicability of change in any despite these deficiencies, the water rights of

particular case. users are so firmly established in the western

Water law to be taken into account includes any changes are initiated.

constitutional and statutory provisions of both

Federal and state judicial decisions and

municipal ordinances.

Basic Systems of Water Law

There are two basic water law systems in the sufficiently obvious to warrant political action. 

United States: the riparian law theory which In Virginia, recent statutes allow the State 

prevails east of the 100th meridian, and the Water Control Board to designate management

prior appropriation system which predominates areas within which restrictions may be imposed

in the west. Some western states have systems to meet emergency conditions. Indiana, North

which combine elements of the riparian Carolina, South Carolina and New Jersey allow

doctrine in their prior appropriation systems restrictions on groundwater use in specific 

(California is the most familiar example). areas. In the west, the Arizona Groundwater

These are called hybrid water law systems. Management Act establishes special use

Emerging in the eastern United States is a restrictions in certain areas.

system of water use permitting which might be

called regulated riparianism, and which

represents the trend in water law development

states that it is only with great difficulty that 

Site Specific Programs

The trend of water law both in the east and the

west is to apply new, improved approaches to

specific geographic areas, where problems are
D-2

Quantification of Water Allocations

Some western states are taking steps to

adjudicate existing water rights in order to

determine how much water is really needed. A

large source of uncertainty regarding water use The term water conservation refers to methods 

comes from unquantified claims of the Indian of reducing consumption of water (although in

tribes and certain Federal reservations. Some the west the term traditionally means 

western states are encouraging the transfer of conserving seasonally available water by dams

water rights to provide for more efficient use and reservoirs).

of water during time of drought. However, 

water management during drought should not Water conservation is an essential tool of

be limited by an assessment of legally drought management. The prior appropriations

recognized water allocations. Water managers allocations procedure discourages water

should push for flexibility of water use where conservation to the extent that water not put to

needed during drought, without waiting for beneficial use may be lost. A few western 

adoption of basic improvements in water states have laws which favor water 

allocation systems statewide. conservation, by use of water salvage, water

Public Trust Doctrine and Instream Flows

The full extent of the public interest in water is

not always recognized by water allocation

decisions. The public trust doctrine holds that

the sovereign retains control of the water The diversion of water from one basin to 

resource to serve public trust purposes, which another is almost always controversial, whether

may include recreation and ecological values. in the east or the west. Such proposals relate

The public trust doctrine has been explicitly primarily to long-range water planning rather 

recognized in some form in nine eastern and than to drought management. However, during 

western states. In California, a court decision a severe drought, if the necessary facilities 

requires California water managers to take the exist and the state law allows, temporary

public trust into account in planning and interbasin diversions may be authorized to 

managing water resources. As a practical meet the needs of the most severely affected

matter, any drought management plan must areas.

include consideration of the instream values of

water, in order to avoid a challenge based upon

the public trust doctrine.

In most states, instream flows are, to some In most states, allocation of ground water is

extent, explicitly protected. A 1989 survey handled differently from that of surface water. 

lists eight western states with instream flow In some states there is no provision at all for

laws, and four which protect instream flows by state allocation of ground water. This situation

means other than allocation. In the east, many complicates the preparation of drought

states have authorized agencies to establish contingency plans, which, in principle, should

minimum stream flows or water levels. provide for most effective use during times of

Instream flows must always be considered as drought of ground and surface water combined,

an important factor in drought management

planning, particularly as the drought intensifies.

Water Conservation

marketing or water banking; but sixteen eastern

states have legislation recognizing the need to

conserve water supplies.

Transbasin Diversions

Groundwater Law and Conjunctive Use

Management

or conjunctive use. Only two states in the east
D-3

have expressly provided for surface and ground It is apparent that the control and management 

water resources to be managed as a single of ground water by the different states is 

system. Arizona has a broad-based centralized highly diverse. In most respects, the physical

program of ground water management, which and institutional arrangements for handling

was devised to meet a chronic and continuing ground water are relatively difficult to modify

ground water shortage. New Mexico has a when a drought occurs. Drought management

system of prior appropriation for ground water studies must be framed in the context of 

resources. The main development of existing arrangements. However, changes may

conjunctive use management in the west has be recommended in advance if the potential

been on an incremental, site-specific basis, drought situation forecast on that basis appears

rather than a statewide program, especially in to be too unfavorable.

California. To meet the difficulties caused by

the recent drought in California, a water bank

was organized to facilitate water transfers from

willing sellers to water districts in need. Loans Drought management planning requires full

are used to allow water districts to develop information in reference to legal authorities and

new supplies, including new wells devoted to restrictions, including knowledge of changing

augmenting stream flows. In the Orange trends nationally, which may suggest particular

County Water District in California, the changes that might improve drought conditions. 

District chose not to regulate ground water If the situation is sufficiently serious, changes 

withdrawals directly, but to impose fees and in law may be recommended.

use the money to import new water.

Conclusions

E-1

E - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES

During the case studies and support studies But the “status quo” is merely the situation that

conducted as part of the National Drought would occur if the recommendations of the 

Study, a few issues regarding the evaluation of DPS were not implemented, and that meaning

the environmental impacts of drought response applies no matter what type of impacts are 

plans frequently caused debate. This annex being considered. In this example, the status 

discusses those issues and provides some quo would be defined by the current operation 

suggestions as to how they might be addressed. of the reservoirs. The environmental impacts 

Issue 1: The use of the status quo

in the management of environmental 

impacts during drought

In the study of the feasibility of a federal

reservoir, the definition of what is referred to 

as the “Status Quo” in the DPS method, or the Environmental impacts become harder to

“existing conditions and most probable future measure the longer the period of analysis and 

without a Federal plan” in federal planning the farther from the stream. A short term 

guidance is clear: the basin without a federal drought might affect one breeding cycle, or

reservoir. All changes in the basin that are destroy a segment of a population of animals 

expected to occur outside the federal action are or plants. These impacts are well known; they

included in this scenario. The definition of are the familiar subject of most drought 

that baseline isolates the effects that will be planning efforts. The greatest difficulty lies 

generated by the recommendations of the not in identifying the impacts, but in instituting

feasibility study from the effects from the solutions and the necessary trade-offs 

decisions made outside the feasibility study. among interests.

This evaluation approach is widely understood

and accepted. Medium and long term droughts (longer than 

But during the National Drought Study case are harder to identify. As a result, defining 

studies and in other forums in which National the mitigating effect of a set of management

Drought Study members participated, there measures is equally difficult. In addition,

were many debates rooted in the definition of medium and long term drought conditions 

the status quo for tactical responses. Many present issues of cumulative impact which are

believed that environmental demands for water poorly understood. For example, what will be

during drought should be tempered by the fact the cumulative impact of a drought which 

that without the reservoirs, the natural system hinders fish spawning for an entire generation 

would have had even less water. Because the of fish? Similarly, what will be the cumulative

natural condition was no reservoir, they argued, effect on the environment of changes in land 

this should be the status quo for the use, human population and pollution, and how

environment, and water beyond that should be will severe drought affect this changing status

considered an improvement. quo? Such problematic questions have led 

of alternative plans should be compared to the

status quo.

Issue 2: The limits of knowledge on the

environmental impacts of drought

one year) have environmental impacts which 

some to suggest “adaptive management” guided

by large scale system-wide controlled
E-2

experiments (Holling, 1978). This is a Thus, the effects of changes to these 

recognition of the lack of knowledge about the recreational opportunities are essentially

long term effects of human intervention in economic.

natural systems. The unknown environmental

impacts of medium and long term drought The suspension of cultural traditions is

could be candidates for such an analysis. considered a social effect. Tribal fishing

(For a discussion of cumulative impact customs which call for taking fish in a 

analysis, see Stakhiv, E., “An Evaluation particular way at a certain time of the year

Paradigm for Cumulative Impact Analysis,” embody fundamental, self-defining values for 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: IWR Policy the tribe. The fishing may have religious and

Study 88-PS-3, 1988. Stakhiv differentiates cultural components as a ritual time when

accumulating impacts of human actions (the families reunite. This fishing is more than

impacts of taking a number of small, recreation, and should be accounted for

incremental actions) from the multiobjective accordingly.

planning perspective where the cumulative 

effect of a number of factors is considered.) The same reduction in flows may also affect 

Issue 3: Multiobjective analysis of changes 

to an ecosystem

The same physical changes (for example, existence of a natural resource by using survey

reductions of instream flows) induced by water techniques (Olsen, 1993), the willingness of

management decisions may have impacts in the society to pay for environmental health is most

economic, environmental, and social well being often determined case by case after a trade-off

accounts. Trading across accounts is not across accounts has been made. For example, 

impossible, but (by definition) no common if society forgoes $1,000,000 in hydropower

currency exists for the three accounts. benefits to save a pair of nesting birds, then we

Reductions in instream flows can reduce economic value in preserving that pair. 

ecosystem based recreation, creating an

economic impact which can be given a dollar Each of these three impact areas is likely to 

value and potentially traded for other economic have individual proponents. Alternatives which

impacts. For example, studies have mitigate recreational impacts may not address

investigated a process for determining how the concerns of environmentalists or tribes.

much sport fishermen would be willing to pay 

for a healthy fishery (Olsen, 1992). Other The three examples show that though instream

kinds of outdoor recreation activities, such as flow seems to be a common denominator, the

boating and swimming, can also be valued in three interests are fundamentally different in

monetary terms. These are elective activities economic, social, and environmental terms. 

for which individuals are willing to pay. Their Actions which are directed at one interest may

decision to recreate at a stream or lake is, to a not be viewed as appropriate by other interests.

great degree, a consumer’s decision about how 

to spend time and money recreating.

the health of the natural ecosystem, and these

effects should be tracked as environmental

impacts. Though methods have been used to

reach a <nonuser’ inherent value for the 

can say after the fact that there was an implied
F-1

F - ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: KEY ISSUES FROM THE CASE STUDIES

In each of the Drought Preparedness Studies during this step that this question should be

there was a debate about whether and to what answered. DPS teams should ask themselves:

extent economics could be used to develop and

evaluate alternative plans. The issues most ! if economic efficiency or the equitable

frequently raised in the case studies are distribution of economic impacts are goals of

examined in this annex. regional water management;

Historically, economic analysis has played a ! whether alternative plans could increase

minor role in the formulation and evaluation of economic efficiency or effect more equitable

plans to mitigate or avoid the impacts of distribution of economic impacts;

drought. This is a result of:

! the difficulty in defining and describing a competing alternatives favor different

drought event in terms of recurrence interval stakeholders (for example, one alternative

and spatial and duration characteristics; increasing days of lake recreation, the other,

! the lack of reliable information from

previous droughts; To the degree that their answer to these 

! the limitations of available analytic tools that economic assessments will be necessary to

that are available; determine which plans best meet their goals. 

! the nature of tactical drought response assessment, considering the generic problems

plans, which tend to include a variety of non- listed at the beginning of this annex, the 

structural measures by more than one interest of decision makers, study funding, and

agency; institutional barriers to implementing

! custom. The use of economic analyses in

the evaluation of federal water projects, 

where it is now required, evolved over a 

period of decades and was spurred by critical Benefit-cost analyses evaluate the preferences 

reviews of federal policy by experts outside of individuals, backed by their willingness to

the federal government. Regional drought pay, for the outputs of a water system as

responses have not engendered the same compared to their preferences for the resources

sustained criticism. used to provide those outputs (Major, 1977). 

Issue 1: Should the evaluation of alternative

drought contingency plans include

consideration of economic impacts?

The second step of the DPS method (Chapter saving it for later use.

4) is to develop planning objectives, decision

criteria, and measures of performance. It is

! whether the measures of performance of

rafting).

questions is “yes”, the DPS teams are affirming

The team must then decide how to conduct the

economically efficient alternatives.

Issue 2. What is a benefit-cost analysis?

In strategic water resources planning, those

choices are often between water and non-water

investments. In a drought, the choices will 

often be between using water for one purpose 

or another, or using water now rather than 
F-2

Those preferences are most visible in a market pay, but there was a $25 million opportunity 

situation, where individuals are free to cost to achieve it. Total surplus is the sum of

determine the level of resources they will consumer and producer surpluses. 

exchange in return for specific outputs. In that

case, the economic benefit society reaps from a

set of transactions is the sum of the consumer

and producer surplus from those transactions. 

The following simplified example (illustrated 

in Figure F-1 and Figure F-2) shows how

benefits would be calculated in a market driven

allocation of water.

If hydropower producers can get all the water

they want (20 million acre-feet), and they are

willing to pay $100 million for it, the area 

under the demand curve:

1⁄2 X ($10/acre-foot) X (20,000,000 acre feet)

Water providers will accept no less than $100

million (the area under the supply curve) for 

20 million acre-feet, presumably because

someone else besides hydropower producers 

will pay them that much for the water.

The optimal amount to allocate is where the 

two curves intersect, at a price of $5 an acrefoot, and a quantity of 10 million acre feet, a 

sale worth $50 million. This is depicted in

Figure F-1. Power producers would have been

willing to pay $75 million, and water suppliers

willing to accept $25 million (the areas under 

the demand and supply curves from 0 to 10

million acre-feet).

Consumer surplus is the difference between 

what power producers were willing to pay and

what they did pay ($75-50 = $25 million). 

Producer surplus is the amount of money 

water suppliers received ($50 million) minus 

the amount they were willing to take ($25

million) = $25 million. Hence the economic

benefit from this transaction is $50 million. 

Producer surplus is an increase in seller’s 

income and a decrease in consumer’s income. 

The gross value of the water to society was 

$75 million, the buyers total willingness to 

A drought would move the supply curve up; 

water suppliers would ask for a higher price 

per acre-foot for a given volume of water. In

Figure F-2, the optimal solution is the sale of 8

million acre-feet of water at $6 an acre-foot, a

sale of $48 million. The sum of consumer and

producer surplus is now $30 million (1⁄2 * 

$(10-2.5)/Acre feet* 8 million acre feet), so the

economic effect of the drought under the status

quo is $20 million ($50-$30 million). If an

alternative plan could be developed that

produced a consumer surplus of $40 million

during a drought, a benefit of $10 million 

could be attributed to the plan.

Estimating changes in economic benefits in

non-market conditions. However, markets 

may not capture all economic effects if some

costs or benefits are not accounted for by

producers or consumers. Moreover, many 

water transactions are not driven by market

forces. In those cases other methods for

estimating the economic benefits of one plan

versus another must be used. There is 

extensive literature on the estimation of

economic effects in non-market conditions. 

The P&G include a comprehensive set of

procedures for the full range of water purposes,

and these are summarized below. DPS teams

may face situations in which the P&G 

estimates are not acceptable to decision makers

who nonetheless are interested in estimating

economic impacts. In those cases, teams 

should call an expert for help. Sources include

the Corps Institute for Water Resources, and

Waterways Experiment Station. In addition,

experts can be found through state water

resources research centers.

The P&G has step by step measures for

estimating benefits in each of several purposes. 

Although designed to be used primarily in the

calculation of NED benefits, they are also
$0.00 

$5 

$10 

0 10 20

Supply and Demand

Demand

Millions of Acre-feet of water

Consumer Surplus

Willingness to pay Producer Surplus

$0.00 

$5 

$10 

0 10 20

Supply and Demand in Drought

Demand

Millions of Acre-feet of water

Consumer Surplus

Producer Surplus

F-3

FIGURE F-1. ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MARKET

TRANSACTIONS

FIGURE F-2. IN A DROUGHT, CONSUMER AND

PRODUCER SURPLUS ARE REDUCED BY $20

MILLION.

useful for estimating RED infestation, and increased incidence and spread

benefits - only the area of measurement forage, graze on and damage agricultural crops. 

changes. In the federal accounting system, When perennial crops, like vines and fruit 

economic impacts (which track the distribution trees, are damaged by drought, the impacts can

of effects) such as employment are also last beyond the drought.

included in the RED account. Because

employment is not a component of economic With drought impacts comes a reduction in

efficiency, these RED impacts cannot be agricultural income and jobs. Losses in

calculated directly from RED benefits. agricultural income are RED losses. Whether

A full presentation of how to use the P&G of crops in one region decreases the national

four-account method in drought planning is supply of agricultural products, reducing

available in Drought Impacts in a P&G American society’s total surplus), depends on 

Planning Context (NDS-8). Additional the severity, duration and extent of a drought 

information can be found in National

Economic Development Procedures Manual -

Overview Manual for Conducting National

Economic Development Analysis, October 

1991 and National Economic Development

Procedures Manual - National Economic

Development Costs, June 1993.

Issue 3: How can the economic impacts to

agriculture be measured when irrigation

water is provided at a subsidy or the sale 

price of crops is subsidized?

It is very difficult to measure the true 

economic impacts of changes in the allocation 

of water to farmers when the price of water 

and crops are both subsidized. The existence 

of double subsidies itself may be an indication

that no significant national economic impacts

will occur. But DPS teams should consider

regional economic effects if that is a decision

criterion.

Agriculture is the sector of the economy that is

most frequently and severely affected by

drought. Water is a critical input in 

agricultural production. Drought-related crop

losses result from dry soils, dehydration,

impaired productivity of the land, insect

of plant disease. Wildlife, denied their natural

these impacts are NED losses (whether the loss

and the uniqueness of the crop and its growing

area. If drought occurs at a point in time that

precludes offsetting increases in production 
F-4

Purpose: the economic effect of a shortfall can be estimated by:

Municipal and

industrial

the cost of making that shortfall up with the cheapest alternative source,

including conservation. 

Recreation changes in willingness to pay estimated from contingent value surveys or the

travel cost method, or, (if required supportive information is not available),

from the decline in use times a pre-determined unit day value of recreation

times the change in use. In any case, DPS teams must agree on a function 

that relates stage or flow to the value of the recreation experience. 

Power the cost utilities pay to replace that power, and (if this is an institutionalized

plan that will adjust firm yields) costs to construct additional capacity. 

Navigation the additional cost of transporting the goods by rail and truck that could not be

shipped by boat because of inadequate depths.

TABLE F-I. THE METHODS PRESCRIBED IN P&G FOR ESTIMATING THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF WATER

MANAGEMENT IN NON-MARKET CONDITIONS.

from other regions, the effects are more likely of new projects), the economic impacts of

to be NED effects. Net farm revenue (income drought are at least theoretically considered in

minus costs) may be an important measure of the plan selection process. In tactical 

the effectiveness of drought response plans to responses, NED impacts are an important, but

affected farmers. When estimates of the not the only, consideration in determining how

economic impacts of agricultural shifts are federal reservoirs will be operated. 

unlikely to be meaningful, agricultural

stakeholders and DPS teams should consider Federal studies of the feasibility of strategic

not developing agricultural economic estimates, water resources measures require the estimation

while still using other measures of of NED effects. Unless an exception is 

performance, such as changes in acreage granted, the alternative recommended in such a

planted, gross revenue, or farm employment to study must be the one that reasonably

compare the acceptability of alternative plans. maximizes net NED benefits, and the net

The limitation of these measures is that benefits must be greater than zero. This

economic tradeoffs must be made without alternative is then referred to as the NED plan. 

reference to agriculture.

Issue 4: Are the NED impacts from drought

likely to influence decisions on the

construction or operation of a federal

reservoir?

This question can be best answered if benefits equal marginal costs; the next

considered from a strategic and tactical increment of reliability will not be worth the

viewpoint (Table VIII describes these terms). incremental costs required to provide that

In strategic planning (such as feasibility studies reliability. If in the NED plan, for example, a

As a rule, if the objective is to provide more

reliable water supply for any purpose, the NED

plan will increase supply reliability but will not

provide certain supply. By definition, the size

of the NED plan is selected when the marginal
F-5

navigation and water supply reservoir is built, Isolating the effects of a drought from other

it is safe to assume that in a fairly rare dry economic activities that may be occurring

period, the reservoir will not be able to meet simultaneously is very difficult. The attempt 

unconstrained demands for water. This is to measure these effects during the recent

exactly the definition of a drought in a California drought and recession (NDS-5)

managed water system. illustrates this difficulty.

Theoretically, then, federal projects are sized to Commercial/industrial surveys were developed

eliminate those drought impacts for which it is and administered by the California Department

cost efficient to do so, and to leave the rest to of Water Resources (DWR) during 1991/92 in

be attenuated by tactical plans, including part to identify the impacts of drought on

drought contingency plans for reservoirs. Of California’s commercial and industrial sectors. 

course the implied precision of this These surveys included telephone and mail

optimization is misleading, because potential surveys, newspaper article searches, and the

impacts are projected over a 50 to 100 review of other surveys conducted by water

planning period, and assumptions about the agencies and business associations. The

severity, duration, and frequency of droughts purpose was to identify the specific businesses

are simplified so that the calculations are affected by drought and to gain a better

manageable. understanding of how they were affected.

The situation is quite different in the It was hoped that the results of this research

development of a tactical plan that specifies could be appropriately extrapolated to the 

how a federal project will be operated during a entire business community. Impacts, identified

drought, or in the evaluation of specific during the survey, were to be used with the

decisions by federal reservoir managers during DWR input-output models to identify direct 

a drought. In that case, NED losses are and indirect changes in regional income and

important, but are not the only criteria in employment. With very few exceptions, the

determining federal actions. Corps managers commercial/industrial survey did not discover

will also consider applicable laws and significant drought effects on businesses, and 

contracts, and whether there are substitute for the proposed extrapolation and input-output

the output from the Corps reservoir (such as analysis were not conducted.

thermal power to replace hydropower).

Issue 5: Droughts last for months, even 

years. How can the impacts of drought be

distinguished from impacts caused by

socioeconomic changes?

The first question planners should ask is interviewees, however, did not aid in

whether they need to determine what the determining how much of these impacts were

impacts of the drought were or how alternative due to drought and how much was due to

responses could reduce impacts. The second recession.

answer is usually sufficient and easier to

estimate. But in general, only the incremental economic

Other surveys were conducted during the same

time period by twenty-four (24) water agencies

and thirteen (13) chambers of commerce. The

results were mixed. Many indicated loss of

revenues, layoffs, and impacts from

moratoriums on new water connections. The

effects of alternatives, as compared to the 

status quo, are important in a DPS. These are

somewhat easier to define and discern.
F-6
G-1

G - HYDROLOGY

Fundamental Principles

This discussion of drought hydrology is limited Interception is eliminated or reduced because 

to consideration of droughts with durations of of reduced precipitation. Infiltration may be

one month or more. While much of what is altered because of soil surface conditions.

said could also be applied to durations shorter

than one month, some factors come into play Measurement of streamflow during both high

for durations of less than a month that fall flood and drought conditions tends to be more

outside the scope of this discussion. These difficult and less accurate because of poor

differences relate primarily to soil conditions, definition of the rating curve and inaccuracies 

interception, and movement of water through in measuring stage. In drought conditions, 

channels. these problems are exacerbated by the 

To a surface water hydrologist, drought exists the stream above the gage. As a consequence,

when any of several parameters, such as the precision of measured low flows is likely 

streamflow, precipitation, and soil moisture, are to be lower in percentage terms, except during

in the lower region of their frequency periods when streamflow is zero.

distributions. To a ground water hydrologist, 

the water table elevation may be the parameter

of concern. To a water manager, reservoir

contents may be the important factor in

hydrologic analysis.

The physical system and its inputs and outputs record length, the better. This premise is based

give rise to the frequency distributions referred on an assumption that the longer record better

to above. ln the usual depiction of the defines the frequency distribution. In the

hydrologic cycle, precipitation falls to the earth Drought Atlas, we have calculated distributions

or on vegetation; is intercepted, infiltrated, based on the entire length of record, in accord

evaporated, or runs off; and moves through or with that assumption. For a first approximation,

across soil and rocks to the stream system it is probably not unreasonable. However, some

which ultimately carries the water to the factors have been ignored that a hydrologist

oceans, where it evaporates to complete the should take into account in preparing analyses

cycle. When precipitation falls as snow, it may of streamflow for a particular situation.

remain in the snow pack until enough energy 

has been absorbed to cause it to melt, after A longer record will define a distribution better

which it moves through soil, rocks, and than a short record only if the distribution does

streams as described above. In drought not change during the period. Such conditions

conditions, discontinuities or abnormal are likely in watersheds that have not

behavior can be seen in the hydrologic experienced major changes in land use,

systems. Actual evapotranspiration will usually diversions from or into the watershed, or

be lower because of the reduced amount of changing errors in gage measurements. There

available soil moisture. (Potential are watersheds like this in the United States, 

evapotranspiration may be higher, if the but not all gages meet these criteria. Stream

drought conditions are accompanied by higher

than normal temperatures and winds.)

increased importance of small diversions from

Length of Streamflow Record and

Procedures for Adjustment and

Augmentation

The conventional wisdom is that the longer the
G-2

gages are often placed on streams where water Among the possible outcomes of this analysis

resources development is anticipated or where are conclusions that:

water management decisions are influenced by

streamflow information. These tend to be the ! The changes are so significant that only the

kinds of locations where land use changes and most recent portion of the record can be used; 

watershed diversions are likely. If a longer

record doesn’t necessarily guarantee higher ! The changes over part of the record were

accuracy, what steps should a hydrologist take sufficiently minor that these portions of the

to prepare accurate analyses? The general record can be used along with the most recent

approaches available are as follows: record; or 

! Determine what portion of the streamflow ! Even though the changes were significant 

record is sufficiently representative of current and definitely affect record quality, the

conditions to use in the analysis; alternatives for augmentation and adjustment of

! Use the measured streamflow record for record is likely to be superior to the

frequency and other hydrologic analyses alternatives. This is most likely to be useful

without augmentation, and with or without where the principal effect on the record is flow

adjustment; diversion. The effects of land use changes are

! Compare the existing record with nearby changes in evapotranspiration and timing of

longer-record stations considered to be in the runoff. It should be possible, however, to

same hydrologic regime, and adjust or extend estimate at least the direction of these changes. 

the existing record accordingly; 

! Generate an augmented streamflow record augmentation is the standard approach used by

from recorded precipitation and one or more hydrologists. It can be enhanced by certain

precipitation-runoff models; statistical analyses. For frequency analysis, the

! Generate synthetic flows by statistical procedures used in the National Drought Atlas.

procedures from the portion of the record The accuracy of such parameters as the mean,

considered representative of current conditions. median, and measures of variance can be

Determining what portion of the streamflow known as bootstrap analysis, in which the

record is representative involves both recorded values in the streamflow series are

qualitative and quantitative analysis. The repeatedly sampled, with replacement, and 

qualitative analysis is a review of watershed these parameters are calculated from the

history to determine whether there have been resulting synthetic series.

significant changes in land use or land cover.

The principal dimensions of the quantitative A particular issue in dealing with streamflow

analysis are examining the diversions of flow during drought conditions is that there are

into and out of the watershed, and evaluation situations in which streamflow is consistently

of the rating curves and station location below or above normal for a decade or more. 

changes. If most of a streamflow record occurs during

the record are inferior. Adjusting the existing

harder to estimate, because they involve 

Using the measured streamflow record without

best available methods use the L-moment

estimated more precisely by a procedure 

such a period, the record may not be as
G-3

representative as it should be for accurate Comparable data series of precipitation or

drought analyses. streamflow are prepared and either plotted on

The practice of comparing a record with a procedure. The relationship could be a simple

longer record on a nearby stream is widely linear or curvilinear relationship, or one in 

used by hydrologists. In principle, this is a which one or both variables have been

reasonable procedure. In practice, one must transformed, often by a logarithmic

decide which nearby streams, if any, have a transformation.

hydrologic regime similar to the one in 

question. Additional variables may be added to improve

At best, objective measures and procedures are relating this month’s precipitation to this 

used to make this determination. The measures month’s streamflow, one could use two 

used include such things as similarity in basin predictor variables, such as this month’s

geology, similarity in annual or seasonal precipitation and last month’s precipitation. 

precipitation, similarity in timing and Such a practice would recognize the 

distribution of flow, and similarity of moisture importance of antecedent conditions that

sources. Double mass curves and statistical influence soil moisture. Other variables that

correlations may be used to help decide might be included are monthly mean 

whether another record should be considered temperature or measured soil moisture at an

sufficiently similar to merit use in record index station.

extension (Linsley et al., 1982, p. 117).

The value of augmenting a streamflow record snowmelt, regional or watershed relationships

with precipitation-runoff models is predicated between such predictor values as snowpack

on the assumptions that a) precipitation is indices, temperature and predicted streamflow

influenced less by land use changes than is have usually been developed and would be 

streamflow, and b) that reliable relationships used to estimate streamflow (Linsley et al.,

between precipitation and streamflow can be 1982, pp 256-258).

developed. The first assumption is nearly 

always a good one, and tends to be better for A more deterministic approach to estimating

large areas than for small ones. The second runoff from precipitation is to use a water

assumption is essentially empirical in nature balance that includes major components of the

and models of these relationships can be hydrologic cycle. This approach has been used

developed to different degrees of by Thornthwaite and Mather at scales ranging

approximation. from the entire earth to individual small

The simplest relationships between actual monthly evapotranspiration is made by

precipitation and streamflow at time scales of using a procedure proposed by Thornthwaite

one month or more are statistical correlations and Mather. The procedure first estimates an

or graphical relationships (Linsley et al., 1982, unadjusted potential evapotranspiration as a

pp. 254-256). Such relationships are relatively function of temperature. These estimates are

easy to explain to a non-hydrologist. In these then adjusted for day length, which is 

relationships, precipitation is the independent expressed as a function of latitude. The

or predictor variable and streamflow is the equations use a formula in which the principal

dependent or predicted variable. variables are monthly mean temperature and 

graphs or subjected to a statistical correlation

these relationships. For example, instead of

In watersheds where streamflow depends upon

watersheds. At its simplest, an estimate of

day length. Estimates of soil moisture 
G-4

retention capacity are then made for the area may often be as accurate as they need to be to

under analysis. Then, using a spreadsheet make water management decisions (Linsley et

format, potential evapotranspiration is al., 1982, pp 339-356). 

subtracted from monthly precipitation. The

monthly deficit or surplus is then used to HEC-1 is one of the most widely used and 

calculate the monthly change in soil moisture most complete models for relating streamflow

storage. In months when precipitation exceeds and precipitation (Bedient and Huber, 1992). 

potential evapotranspiration, actual It is event based, and would require adjustment

evapotranspiration is considered to be equal to of monthly values derived from the Atlas to

potential evapotranspiration. Runoff is obtain the short duration events necessary as

calculated as half of the surplus water in each input to the model.

month (Mather, 1978).

The Thornthwaite-Mather approach is crude in procedures has been done since the 1960's, and

its estimates, and somewhat difficult to follow precursors of these procedures have been in 

in applying it. High precision cannot be use since the 1920's. Statistical synthetic

expected. However, it has the advantage of hydrology was impractical before powerful

being usable with a minimum of information, digital computers became available in the

and can be regarded as a suitable first 1960's, because of the large amount of

approximation, if no other rainfall-runoff calculation required. The earliest methods

model has been developed. If more elaborate involved writing numbers that represented 

and well-tested models have been developed single items in an existing data series on cards

for a watershed, they should, almost without and repeatedly shuffling and drawing from 

exception, be employed instead of the these cards to generate synthetic data series of

Thornthwaite-Mather approach. streamflow. The methods in use now work 

More complex precipitation-streamflow water generate many new sequences from that 

balance models are based on simulations that existing distribution. The existing distribution

use time steps shorter than one month, and may be represented by parameters of the

calculate values for several of the variables in distribution or, alternatively, the measured

the hydrologic cycle. Typically, such models values may be repeatedly sampled to develop

use short-period precipitation (one day or less), long series, as was done in the bootstrap

daily temperature, and land use characteristics analysis, described above (Linsley et al., 1982,

to estimate evapotranspiration, soil moisture at pp. 388-411).

one or more levels, and volume of streamflow.

Timing of streamflow is based on travel times A particularly effective modelling approach for

through the soil, over land, and in the channels forecasting “streamflow volume over a long-

(a function of stream channel characteristics). term (seasonal) duration and a short term (5-90

Such models have the potential to provide days) duration and providing associated

highly precise and accurate simulations of probabilities of occurrence and statistical

streamflow, where there is considerable evaluations of the predictions” is the National

information on the input parameters. However, Weather Service Extended Streamflow

even in those instances where minimal Predication Procedure. This procedure has 

information is available, such as precipitation been tested for several years in different parts 

and temperature, these models can provide of the country, and has yielded useful 

good estimates for durations of one month or forecasts.

more. For practical applications, the results 

Generating synthetic streamflows by statistical

from the existing distribution and randomly
G-5

The Extended Streamflow Prediction Procedure precipitation values are at the low end of the

(ESP) uses historical meteorological data and frequency distribution, the numerical difference

assumes that each year of historical data is a between values with substantially different

possible representation of the future. ESP frequency may be small. For example, for

forecasts use the National Weather Service precipitation, the difference between the .02

River Forecast System Operational Forecast quantile and the .10 quantile for Cluster 20

System, which “generates short-range (Ohio) in the month of July is only about 20% 

streamflow forecasts by inputting observed and of the median precipitation for the month

forecast precipitation and temperature data into (Atlas).

conceptual hydrologic and hydraulic models 

that simulate the snow accumulation and

ablation, rainfall/runoff, watershed routing, and

channel routing processes to produce simulated

streamflow.” (Day, 1985).

While the ESP procedure uses historical traces

of meteorological variables, it would also be

possible to use elements of the procedure with

precipitation amounts derived from the 

National Drought Atlas. Among the 

difficulties faced in using monthly precipitation

with the conceptual models for relating rainfall

and runoff in the NWSRFS Operation Forecast

System is estimating shorter duration

precipitation from the monthly values. A

summary of some of the approaches to making

these short duration estimates is given by

Essenwanger (1986).

It is tempting to think that the inherent

inaccuracies of making runoff estimates are so

high that there is little point in doing them at 

all. This temptation should be resisted. The

point of making estimates is to make decisions.

Those decisions often entail setting upper and

lower boundaries on the expected future state 

of a system at a given probability of 

occurrence. If the lower bound is zero, and the

upper bound is also near zero, higher precision

will not enhance the decision. If previous

practice was to make worst-case estimates, e.g.,

the lowest flow ever recorded for the 

subsequent month or year, and one can 

establish that the upper and lower boundaries 

on expected flow are materially different from

the worst-case estimate, the decision has been

improved. Because drought flows and drought

Questions of Interest. In drought hydrology, 

it isn’t always obvious what questions need to

be answered. Some would say that what is

ultimately desired is a) the frequency analysis

of streamflow for some duration and b) 

procedures for estimating future streamflow

from estimates of future precipitation. These 

are some, but not all, of the relevant questions. 

Water managers are often required to answer

questions posed by members of the lay public,

such as government officials, industrial and

business managers, members of environmental

groups, the press, etc. Their questions are often

expressed in probability terms, such as:

! what is the likelihood that we will get 

enough precipitation to be out of this drought

next month or in the next two months? Or,

! what is the likelihood that streamflow will

remain below normal over the next 6 months?

Or,

! if we have another month of below normal

precipitation, what will happen to streamflow?

Only the second of these three questions can

even potentially be answered by an 

examination of streamflow statistics alone. The

others, and many like it, ultimately can only be

addressed by considering multiple parameters.

The first and third questions are among the 

more likely questions to be posed by the lay

public and are grounded in the common-sense

notion that precipitation is the driving force
G-6

behind streamflow. In fact, the probability of occurrence. This is because the streamflow

occurrence of streamflow deriving from a probability is the result of factors other than

once-in-fifty year low precipitation will almost precipitation, which have different probabilities

certainly not have the same probability of of occurrence.
H-1

COOPERATIVE ADVERSARIAL

UNASSISTED

PROCEDURES 

Informed

Discussion

Negotiation

THIRD PARTY

ASSISTANCE

Conciliation

Facilitation

Mediation

Mini Trial

Non-binding

Arbitration

Settlement

Judge

THIRD PARTY

DECISION

MAKING

Administrative

Hearing

Binding

Arbitration

Litigation

NONVIOLENT

COERCION

Civil

Disobedience

VIOLENT

CONFLICT

Terrorism

Revolution

War

Partnering Dispute

Review Board

FIGURE H-1. THE ADR CONTINUUM

H - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is the Corps of Engineers handbook (Creighton, 

name given to interventions in the decision 1993). The preferred method is one that is 

making process which use a variety of methods more likely to produce better outcomes at a

developed in legal, labor relations, and other lower transaction cost. While lawsuits are

fields. considered the most hostile resolution in

The original context of ADR was as an physical violence is the extreme dispute

alternative to litigation. This annex includes a resolution technique.

brief introduction to ADR methods and their

applicability within the context of water In ADR, the term “stakeholder” describes those

planning and management, especially regarding parties to a problem solving process who have

droughts. the ability to affect the outcome of the solution

ADR Methods

The ADR continuum (Figure H-1) has been top of the ADR continuum as shown in 

used for some time to display the range of Figure H-1. Those options give stakeholders

methods for resolving disputes arranged greater “ownership” of solutions (that is, the

according to the level of hostility. This stakeholders assume greater control over

version of the continuum is taken from a new products and process and hence minimize

American water management disputes, war or

or are impacted significantly by the outcomes 

of the process. DPS teams will generally 

prefer ADR options to the left and towards the
0

5

10

5 10

More satisfaction for Party "B"

Avoidance or

Impasse

A solution created by the parties

through interest based negotiations.

Traditional "best" compromise

based on positional bargaining.

H-2

FIGURE H-2 INTEREST BASED NEGOTIATION

CAN PRODUCE AGREEMENT ON “WIN-WIN”

ALTERNATIVES THAT MIGHT NOT BE

IDENTIFIED IN POSITION BASED

BARGAINING.

concern about manipulation by outside interests parties in a dispute in an effort to reach

or factors). In addition, options to the left and agreement. The positions are developed

top generally have lower transaction costs, independently by each party in the negotiation,

measured in dollars, time and intensity of based on their interests and their perception of

conflict. the other party’s interests. The first (opening)

Informed discussion refers to communication

among parties involved in a potential conflict 

in which information is shared and perceptions 

are measured separate from any declared intent

to reach a formal agreement on resolution of 

the issues. Informed discussion reduces 

pressure on the discussants, and may be helpful

in avoiding problems.

Interest based negotiation is a type of formal

negotiation by parties who have the authority 

to make commitments for the organizations 

they represent. Interest based bargaining or

negotiation is different from traditional

positional bargaining. Conciliation. This is a very informal process,

Positional bargaining embodies a strategy in “fact finding” or helping the disputants form 

which a series of positions are presented to other the relationships necessary to “come to the

position represents the maximum gains the

proponent hopes for, and subsequent positions

demand less from the opponent and result in

fewer benefits for the proponent. Agreement is

reached when the parties positions converge. 

In Figure H-2, this movement occurs along the

diagonal defining the shaded area.

In interest based bargaining, the parties

collaborate to meet each others needs and

satisfy mutual interests. Interests of the parties

are identified prior to the development of

solutions, and solutions are developed and

evaluated jointly to meet real, not perceived

interests. The creativity of all parties can be

brought to the development of alternatives. The

solution drawn outside the shaded area in 

Figure H-2 depicts the advantage of interest

based negotiation, which is the increased

probability of agreeing on solutions in which

each party does better than the best

compromise.

Cooperative Decision Making. Virtually all

group process can be helped by some kind of

structure. Too often, negotiations which 

involve decision making or problem solving

involving parties in disagreement are free-forall’s, with everyone loudly stating their 

positions and no one listening to anyone else. 

If one party offers suggestions for ground rules

and structured process, the negotiations might

proceed with a better chance of success. The

intervention takes place within the group itself,

and does not require the assistance of a neutral

third party who is not a stakeholder in the

negotiations.

whereby a third party may come in to assist in
H-3

table.” Generally, however, the parties still supposed to make money, and they work

conduct the negotiations and decision making together to make both happen. In general,

themselves. partnering is an attempt by such interdependent

Facilitation. Facilitators are used to help 

make group processes more effective and

efficient. The facilitator is neutral on the

substance of the dispute, and assumes

responsibility for a structured process that 

helps the group achieve agreement and

resolution of the problem. Facilitators are

skilled in providing a “safe” setting for the 

airing of differences, keeping the meeting on Third Party Decision Making. Unlike

track, insuring equal time for all participants, facilitation and mediation which uses third 

instilling a sense of fairness in the process, party intervention only to assist stakeholders in

offering optional processes and approaches, and finding agreement, there are a range of third

moving parties toward consensus. party intervention options which remove the

Mediation. The use of a neutral third-party

mediator to assist parties in conflict may be 

used with as few as two parties or, like

facilitation, in a group setting. Unlike the

facilitator, the mediator has permission to 

caucus with stakeholders outside the group

setting, shuttle back and forth among parties, 

and offer solutions or strategies for breaking

deadlocks. Mediators are trained to move

disputants past their “positions” to a discussion

of the underlying “interests” that may provide

common ground for joint gains for all

stakeholders. Stakeholders in the mediation

should be willing participants in the process,

with a shared intent to reach agreement if

possible.

Mini-trial. A structured settlement process

during which authorized neutrals hear a case 

and deliver findings upon which the parties

make a decision.

Partnering is a formal, but non-binding

agreement among parties playing different, but

interdependent roles in an undertaking. Its first

use in the Corps of Engineers was in

construction contracting. The Corps and its

construction contractors recognize that the job is

supposed to be done well and the contractor is

groups to create a working relationship

conducive to trust, understanding and the 

pursuit of mutually acceptable goals. Parties

make agreements in principle to share risks and

promote cooperation. Partnering agreements

were used in the National Drought Study 

DPS’s to formalize the relationships that the

DPS had developed.

power of decision making from the disputants

and transfers this control to the third party

interveners. Examples of these techniques are

mandatory, non-binding arbitration and

voluntary, binding arbitration. Arbitration is a

quasi-judicial process involving a judgement on

the facts of the dispute.

The DPS method and public involvement

principles in general stress the importance of

stakeholder “ownership” of the final agreement. 

For that reason, the processes up to and

including mediation on the ADR continuum are

most appropriate for application to drought

contingency planning. Within this realm, the

decision making resides with the stakeholder

group, even though assistance may be offered 

by outside parties.

However, the reality of the world of

stakeholders in drought planning is often one 

of a history of ritualized conflict and

competition with water management agencies

and among different agencies with overlapping

jurisdiction. The use of third-party assistance 

in the form of either facilitation (when the 

parties are able to handle substantive issues

without too much conflict), or mediation (when

moving the process and the substance along are

both required) is useful, and often essential to
H-4

the resolution or management of stakeholder Conflicts in a DPS can be over human

conflicts in drought contingency planning. relationships, political power, data, interests,

ADR, Litigation, and Planning

ADR versus litigation. Any party considering

litigation should consider ADR after discussing

both avenues with counsel. An Executive 

Order and the policies of many agencies

(including the Corps of Engineers) encourage 

its use. Among the most important issues to

consider when faced with a choice between

litigation and ADR are:

! Are there persons from each potential entity

in the conflict who can participate in the ADR

process and who have the authority to make

commitments for that entity?

! Can the issue be resolved independently,

without resolution of a larger, overarching

dispute?

! Is resolution of the issue on the facts

acceptable, without the establishment of a

precedent that clarifies a point of law? 

! Is there a mechanism available to enforce or

implement a decision reached through ADR?

! Can the dispute be resolved without

endangering the parties needs for

confidentiality?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no”,

disputants may prefer to litigate, or to take

remedial action so that the answer can be 

“yes”. 

ADR and planning. Some elements of

alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques

are synonymous with good planning and

evaluation, such as the development of clearly

stated objectives, openness to alternatives, and

the use of defensible, replicable evaluation

procedures. But sometimes conflicts can prevent

planning from taking place or being effective. 

values, and elements of the study structure itself

(such as time, institutions, unequal control or

geographic balance). ADR experts can help in

a planning study if:

! decision makers or important stakeholders

have not invested authority with the DPS

process, that is, have not agreed to accept the

outcomes from the DPS process.

! there are conflicts among study participants

not related to the study issues.

! interpersonal working relationships and

communications are ineffective.

! there is a rigid adherence to a specific

rational-analytic framework that does not

identify or address underlying needs.

In addition, ADR experts can work with 

planners when study conflicts are aggravated 

by human factors. For example, a team 

member used to gathering and analyzing data

may try to make data gathering the whole of 

the study, and that person’s technical prowess

may divert team members from designing a

study that will achieve the planning objectives. 

ADR experts can work with planners to find

ways to define an appropriate scope for data

gathering while preserving the commitment of

the data analyst to the study process.

Perhaps as important as the body of research

and case studies, ADR experts can bring to a

DPS the human skills for which ADR

professionals are noted. Just as the engineering

profession is associated with pragmatism and

mathematical proficiency, ADR professionals

often have a special capacity (enhanced by

education and training) for effective listening,

direct expression, and insight into the ways

personalities affect study processes.
H-5

Getting to the table

Good water resources planning and possibility of negotiation among the same

management practice demands collaborative groups on non-water issues, or a reduction in

decision making and the sharing of information water management costs.

among four primary stakeholder groups: water

users, water managers, advocacy groups, and 2. When the stakeholder overlooks the

others with special interests not included in the possibility that its current advantage could 

first three groups. If an important stakeholder be taken from it (Figure 2 could be redrawn

boycotts the planning process, the process will by a third party over the objections of the

not be effective. Hence, the most important stakeholder, creating a “compromise” at a

ADR contribution to a drought study process lower degree of satisfaction for the

may be getting stakeholders groups “to the stakeholder). That was one of the most

table.” A stakeholder that has dominant legal important lessons learned in the recent

rights to water use, or that has the staff and California drought (see the annex on that 

funding to control water management study beginning on page L-1): droughts can

information may believe that negotiation can rearrange what was thought to be a stable

only reduce their standing, and may refuse to balance of power in a regional water setting. 

be involved in a DPS, or worse, pretend to be Although many western water experts 

committed to the process. This is a believed that appropriation law and water

demonstration of rational self interest, no contracts guaranteed farmers a certain

different in kind than a refusal to accept a allocation of water during drought, they 

“heads you lose, tails you lose” gamble. The failed to consider the public pressure to

impasse can only be broken if it can be change collective choice allocation rules if

demonstrated that there is a potential for the those rules do not seem to serve the public.

reluctant participant to gain from participation. 

Referring to the diagram shown in Figure H-2, be persuaded to disbelieve its incorrect

there are two general types of situations in assessment. DPS teams confronted with the

which a stakeholder group can mistakenly refusal of an important stakeholder to 

assume that negotiating offers no opportunity participate should consider ending the study or

for improving its position: decreasing its scope to preclude the need for

1. When the stakeholder considers only the continue when there is no indication that the

outcomes offered by positional bargaining stakeholder will participate may be a waste of

(solutions within the shaded triangle). In time and money, and may sour other 

drought, positional bargaining is often tied to participants on the concept of collaborative

the quantity of water a stakeholder will planning. A joint and public decision by other

receive when water is in short supply. stakeholders to end a DPS may persuade the

However, bargainers should consider why the “pretend” participant to truly engage in the 

water is needed and how a refusal to study process.

participate in a DPS will affect the reluctant

participant in areas not directly related to the

DPS. For example, if the reluctant 

stakeholder uses water to make profit, the

stakeholder could be given an opportunity to

sell water at a profit in a water market.

Indirectly related issues include the 

It may be true that the reluctant stakeholder 

has correctly assessed the situation or cannot 

involvement of the reluctant participant. To
H-6

ADR and the Shared Vision Model

Shared vision models are a first attempt at the model building process. In the DPS’s, a

creating a collective consciousness, where three stage model building process was used to

abstractions are all included, remembered in build trust in the model. First, each 

every evaluation, and are on display for every stakeholder group was interviewed, and 

one to examine. A shared vision model can portions of the model were built that pertained

generally be as expert in each abstraction as to the outputs and values of interest to them. 

each person can make it, and it insists on These interviews also gave them an 

including each abstraction in every evaluation opportunity to see other parts of the model. 

it produces. Hence, all are assured that they Second, a joint workshop was held, and a 

are important and that their knowledge and series of exercises was used to determine if the

concerns are connected to decisions. model replicated behavior of the system well

A shared vision model is not just a used in evaluating alternatives and virtual

combination of hardware and software; not just droughts, which allowed another opportunity 

new tool for manipulating data in creative for challenge and refinement. In the virtual

ways. A shared vision model is also a drought held in Seattle, six challenges were

PROCESS for dispute resolution. It can entice made to the model’s verity, but in each case,

stakeholders to the table, but it also enhances discussions within the group showed that the

the opportunity for moving through the stages challenger was wrong, the model right. 

of dispute resolution to a durable and

implementable agreement. If the shared vision Data conflicts are at the heart of the kinds of

modeling process is used in combination with processes that are often stymied by an inability

facilitation in a workshop setting, such as in a to agree on water management plans. The

“Virtual Drought”, the results can be ability of stakeholders in a planning process to

exceptionally powerful in forging consensus on enter, display and manipulate data as a team,

drought contingency plans. provides a powerful incentive to move forward

The first agreement in the dispute resolution knowledge is power, allowing stakeholders to

process is reached when people come together access system models directly can re-balance

and have a look. The second stage of dispute water policy dialogue.

resolution is what is often called “building a

shared intent” to solve the problem. This is And the problem of “who has expert status?” is

not as easy as it sounds. People can assemble also quickly solved, because all stakeholders

for a problem solving exercise and then sitting in teams at the computer have equal

withhold or distort information, resist status as “expert” generators, repositories and

communication and negotiation, and mistrust manipulators of shared information.

others in the group. The role of the workshop

facilitator at this point is to prod the Once participants in the DPS process come to

participants, probing the reasons for resistance the table and agree on a common goal to enter

and lack of trust, working through past history the process and move toward solutions, the 

and issues of turf, status and competition. work of negotiation begins. At this stage, the

The role of a shared vision model as a dispute defining problems and laying out issues, as 

resolution partner, and one of the keys to its they work together at computer terminals,

power as a public consultation and negotiation playing “what if...” games and exploring

tool, is its ability to assimilate and display the

expert knowledge each stakeholder adds during

and understandably. Finally, the model was

in problem solving. To the extent that

workshop facilitator assists stakeholders in
H-7

scenarios. As mentioned above, workshop The time it takes to reach agreement is

participants are all working from the same data shortened, and the agreements are likely to be

base (what the dispute resolution professionals more durable.

call “single text negotiations”), generating,

refining, testing out, and narrowing the issues. In summary, attempts at inclusive and creative

The workshop facilitator will begin to move respond appropriately to drought conditions,

participants in the negotiations toward a hard even using the art and science of dispute

look at the basic interests and values which resolution, often fail because of the absence of

underlie the stated issues. Many of these methods to deal with the technical problems

interests are “non-negotiable”, for example inherent in decisions involving large, 

retention of present infrastructure for water competing data sets. But the application of

management (reservoir), even when an issue dispute resolution techniques, such as 

may have arisen suggesting the benefit of a facilitated problem solving workshops, in

change in infrastructure. But the shared vision combination with computer-assisted decision

model anchors the possibility of finding making (using a tool such as STELLA II®),

common ground. Options are generated more shows great promise for resolving longquickly, and the evaluation of those options standing disputes over the preparation and

takes place almost instantaneously with the management of drought.

shared vision model.

public involvement in public issues like how to

I-1

I - DROUGHT AND THE PUBLIC

The public will be involved in droughts, and losing the technical effectiveness of the 

should be involved in drought preparedness planning process. In the conduct of Drought

efforts. The interactions with the public during Preparedness Studies, public involvement is

planning and during droughts are different necessarily an integral part of the basic 

enough that different names have been applied process, as well as being required by 

to each, and different offices within water legislation and policy designed for general

agencies assigned to each function. The phrase application. 

public involvement has generally been used to

refer to efforts at including the public in

planning, whereas public relations is more 

often used to describe the methods an The following brief history of public

organization uses to promote a favorable image involvement is a summary from Hanna 

with the public. Public affairs is somewhere in Cortner’s essay on public involvement in

the middle, but it is the public affairs staff that Governance and Water Management During

will be (or should be) in charge of Drought (NDS-14).

communication of information to the public

during a drought. By examining legal developments and case

Many water managers believe they practice resources, four eras can be identified: the era 

good “public involvement” because they of closed participation; the era of maximum

conduct regular meetings at which agency feasible participation; the era of

policies are explained and questions from the environmentalism; and the era of collaborative

public answered. But this approach may not decision building.

be effective in developing support for agency

decisions or inducing changes in water users ! The Era of Closed Participation. Water

behavior that can reduce drought impacts. politics during this era was a closed system of

Water managers can compare their programs to decision making, controlled by local water 

the historical development of public users, federal water development agencies, and

involvement that follows. The annex the authorizing committees in Congress, whose

concludes with a summary of conclusions from patterns of relationships were marked by 

two studies concerning public information clearly identifiable rules. Often described as

campaigns during droughts. “iron triangles”, the policy outputs of this

Public Involvement

Requirements for public involvement in water Participation, as well as analysis, served the

resources decision making have generally political purpose of rationalizing projects

become more important within recent years. (Ingram 1972; Lord 1979). Participation was

This situation presents problems to the planner, marked by one-way communication flow; its

because there is no clearly defined established purpose was largely educational and

methodology, and there are limits to which informational, designed to sell plans and gain

public involvement can be extended without local support (Daneke 1977). The public was

History of Public Involvement

studies of participation programs in water

system were often said to be overbuilt,

expensive, environmentally damaging and

unnecessary water projects (Reisner, 1986;

Maass, 1951; Ferejohn 1974; Morgan 1971). 
I-2

viewed as clients who had a mutual interest in experts, and a growing skepticism over the

pursuing water development. validity of technological decisions (Desario and

! The Era of Maximum Feasible Participation.

After World War II two significant policy The decade began with the signing of National

trends would converge and profoundly affect Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,

water policy: (1) the growth of legislation and which declared a national environmental policy

policies designed to protect the environment; for the nation, and greatly expanded the 

and (2) an increase in legal requirements and public’s right to have environmental impacts

programs designed to broaden the participation disclosed and to participate in the disclosure

of the public in governmental decision making. process. NEPA requires agencies 

Some of the earliest programs that made contemplating actions that will significantly

specific attempts to broaden the participation of affect the environment to prepare 

affected and interested public’s occurred in the environmental impact statements. It also

area of social welfare policy. Soon the specifies that those statements will be 

expectations and demands for public assembled by interdisciplinary teams, consider

participation carried over to other policy areas. non-commodity as well as commodity values,

A 1965 presidential order directed all federal and afford the public an opportunity for review

agencies to improve their communication with and comment.

the public (Langton 1993). In the area of 

water, the Water Resources Planning Act of Despite the considerable investment of time,

1965, for example, required that “water related dollars, and personnel that participation efforts

initiatives be conducted on a comprehensive received during the 1970's and 1980's,

and coordinated basis by the federal controversies persisted and sometimes even

government, state, localities, and private escalated. Many conflicts over resource

enterprise with the cooperation of all affected management issues continued to land in court. 

federal agencies, states, local governments, Attempts to devise ways to resolve conflicts

individuals, corporations, business enterprises, without resorting to litigation spawned the

and others concerned.” In response to the development of alternative dispute resolution

growing public demand for public access to techniques, including for example: negotiation,

decision making and amidst growing mediation, arbitration, and partnering (provides

environmental controversies, the Corps of for a joint planning approach between agencies

Engineers began to implement methods of failing to reach agreement by normal means.

informing and involving a greater range of Partnering was adopted as a policy by the 

interests. The goal of participation still Chief of Engineers in March 1993.) However,

remained largely educational and informational such procedures still would fall far short of a 

and relied heavily on formal, e.g., public full collaborative approach.

hearing, techniques (Daneke 1977).

! The Era of Environmentalism. The 1970's There have been approximately three decades 

saw an explosion of environmental legislation, of experimentation with public participation

as well as mandates for public involvement. methods and techniques (Creighton et al. 1983;

The public became increasingly concerned Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental

about the environmental impacts of pollution, Relations 1979). Based on numerous

but also about the preservation of land and evaluations of past public involvement efforts, 

water resources. These public concerns were a set of performance criteria has emerged.

also coupled with an increasing distrust of

Langton 1987).

! The Era of Collaborative Decision Building. 
I-3

Generally, effective public involvement has the ! to supply pertinent information;

following characteristics:

! two-way communication; use priorities;

! involvement early and through the entire ! to raise broad but related value questions;

process; 

! deliberation involving informal and problems;

personal processes; and

! representation of all interests (Blahna and acceptable.

Yonts-Shepard 1989)

Despite all of our experiences in public involvement represents the move from

involvement, meeting these standards has been representative democracy to participatory

an elusive goal. They will remain challenges democracy, with the responsible officials

for the future. conveners and facilitators rather than managers. 

Forms of Public Involvement

There are many different forms of public increase the credibility of decisions, but leaving

involvement, all geared toward the interrelated intact the basic responsibility of officials. 

goals of changing government behavior or There is clearly no unified theory of public

changing citizen behavior. Most successful involvement which would satisfy everybody. 

methods seem to involve a series of informal Approaches employed must be appropriate to

contacts between groups, two-way the specific situation and be perceived as fair 

communication, and shared decision making. by the principal participants, but can vary

The difficulty comes in sharing decision widely.

making. If agency officials (or other leaders)

really do not intend to let their decisions be There are considerable differences of opinion

influenced by outsiders, and if the other regarding the extent to which the general 

interests are unwilling to compromise with public should be involved in planning rather 

opinions of the agency, no amount of skilled than dealing only with representatives of

public involvement techniques will provide an identified key interests. The persons involved, 

agreed solution. However, with care, better in addition to legally constituted decision

results can be achieved, by using working makers, must include “stake holders” whose

groups of diverse membership, oriented interests are affected, even though legally they

initially towards the problems, and, on have no power of decision.

occasion, by open public meetings and surveys

of citizens’ attitudes and opinions. Procedures

of Alternative Dispute Resolution may be

applied as appropriate (see Appendix H). The Drought Preparedness Study is not a

Public participation may help to: brought out in the main report, is a cooperative

! increase administrative accountability; non-federal agencies. Cooperation between the

! to evaluate methodological approaches and

! to call planners’ attentions to immediate

! and to make plans more politically 

More generally, it has been stated that public

However, such theories should not be taken too

far. Public involvement is a remedial 

technique, designed to correct abuses, and

Special Characteristics of the DPS

traditional project planning study, but, as

undertaking between responsible federal and
I-4

Corps and other decision makers is not only a knowledge, and commitment of the public. 

matter of policy, but is an essential part of the Two examinations of how agencies and the

structure of the Study. The completion of the public communicated during California 

study is in the form of an agreement. Usually droughts highlight the issues that water 

the participating agencies include federal managers should consider in developing the 

agencies, one or more states, and large part of their tactical plan that deals with public

municipalities. Therefore public involvement information.

for a DPS inherently includes collaboration and

agreement with specified decision makers. It Analysts drew three conclusions about the 

also includes a more general responsibility to media from the recent California drought 

the general public, in accordance with laws, (NDS-5):

policies and directives applicable to water

resources planning generally.

Public involvement, mandated or encouraged 

by numerous laws and directives, is not a 

clearly specified process or technique, but one

dependent upon particular circumstances. An

open cooperative approach is desirable, but it

should be one that recognizes the basic

responsibilities of officials, and the importance

of a well-focused planning process.

Public involvement features two-way

communication, use of informal contacts and

work groups, more citizen participation, more

sensitivity to environmental impacts, and a

chairman functioning as a facilitator (as well as a

manager).

In DPS, collaboration is two-fold. The Corps

works collaboratively with other key agencies 

in formulating the agreements which together

form the framework of the plan. However, the

Corps also works cooperatively with other

stakeholders and the general public in

implementing laws and policies applicable to

public involvement in water resources planning

in general. In preparing for a DPS, careful

attention must be given to both aspects of the

public involvement process.

Public Affairs

During a drought, the effectiveness of drought

responses is often a function of the trust,

! The role of the media is not well

understood by water managers. The

media are governed by their own rules

of objective reporting, newsworthiness,

and perceptions of what the public

wants to know. They cannot be

managed by water agencies. If they

were, they would not be able to sell

news. The questions like, “Are we in 

a drought?” or “Is the drought over?” 

are not silly questions from the media’s

point of view. Reporters understand 

the thinking modes and perceptions of

the general public much better than

water professionals. For them, once 

the water supply situation is called a

drought, it automatically implies that

behavior has to be changed from 

normal behavior to crisis behavior. 

Such a change is newsworthy.

! The media cannot improve on

imprecise and ambiguous messages.

Most likely, the statements will become

even more confusing after they are

reported in the press. Only

unambiguous and complete answers to

questions that are asked by the press 

can be communicated clearly to the

public.

! Media cannot explain complex water

management issues. What is very

interesting to water professionals is

usually “too dry” for newspapers,
I-5

 radio, and television. Long feature 2. Even after the campaign, water users

articles on water issues do not sell greatly underestimated the amount of water

newspapers, but timely, well-written they used, but the error was less than before

articles during a drought emergency the campaign.

will be read by concerned people.

Consumer Response to the Drought Media use were also the most likely to report they

Campaign in Southern California reports the needed more information on how to do so.

results of surveys to evaluate the effects of the

Metropolitan Water Districts large scale media 4. The campaign increased trust that the

campaign to inform the public about the agencies call for conservation was necessary

drought and to recommend water saving and should be supported.

measures. Here are some of the key findings

from the study: 5. Support for farmers use of water was

1. There was a statistically significant commercial and industrial use declined. It is

increase in the public’s awareness of the generally accepted in social behavior research

drought after the campaign, and those who that conservation campaigns will be more

became aware of the drought through the effective if the sacrifices are fairly shared. 

campaign were more likely to believe in the This suggests that publicizing the equity of

seriousness of the drought and to conserve drought restrictions may be effective in

water. Television appeared to be the most reducing water use.

effective medium for increasing awareness.

3. The people most willing to reduce water

greater after the campaign, while support for

J-1

J - CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR CIRCLES OF INFLUENCE

From the outset, accomplishing the National

Study of Water Management during Drought

involved confronting an organizational The circles of influence concept can be

dilemma: how can planning be timely, summarized in terms of two basic assumptions.

technically sophisticated, cost effective and First, in attempting to bring together in a 

also inclusive of the hundreds of thousands and common ongoing effort the many varied and

even millions of people impacted by a more or less organized segments of a 

drought? community, many different modes of

The organizational concept dubbed “Circles of building links among these different modes of

Influence” was used during the National participation typically requires the creation of

Drought Study and is recommended for use in new community institutions.

other water resources studies. The concept is

explained in Chapter 3 of this report. This Five key elements define the circles of 

annex describes the origins of the concept. influence concept. 

The planning dilemma

The principal objective of a Drought in the broader community is needed to 

Preparedness Study (DPS) is to effect changes spearhead community change.

in a regional water management that reduce the

impacts of drought. Because such changes ! Second, everyone in the community affected

most often take the form of behavior by a target problem has to have their 

modifications, the changes will be more fingerprints on a viable solution. Varied levels

effective if the impacted community is engaged and types of participation are needed to

in the solution to drought problems. accomplish this inclusive involvement.

Drought conditions themselves, however, ! Third, the development of the circles of

complicate the realization of this community influence has to be opportunistic, i.e., it is

commitment. The drought community - the necessary to exploit the salient problems and

mass of people who share the impact of resources on the table at a given point in time. 

drought conditions - typically overlaps or ! Fourth, communication among the circles is

outruns established jurisdictional boundaries. necessary to build a sense of a cause everyone 

Drought conditions, in addition, intensify the is working on, has a stake in, and is going to 

multiple short-run competing interests of get credit or blame for.

different community segments. The work of

developing a drought plan, in contrast to this ! Fifth, a criterion for the effectiveness of the

competitive perspective, involves taking a circles of influence is their efficiency in

long-term perspective, accepting cost and producing the decisions needed to advance the

benefit tradeoffs among interests, and risking implementation of plans.

free-rider exploitation.

Concepts behind circles

participation have to be utilized. Second,

! First, a cadre with the appropriate mix of

skills, time, and the necessary influence/utility 
J-2

These key elements of the circles of influence It struck Dr. Waldman that, for all the

concept underlie the two basic working fundamental differences among these 

assumptions stated above. Assumption one movements and even their inconsistent

(many different modes of participation have to awareness of each other, many of their basic

be utilized) emphasizes the need to build an concepts were similar. The circles of influence

organization on the base of the varied theory is based on these similarities.

capacities and constraints of community

members required for a solution. These varied Although based on the intuition of practiced

capacities and constraints can include time, organizers, the advantages of Circles of 

skills, interests, other commitments, and Influence can be related to some of the

community positions. fundamental ideas influencing current social

Assumption two (building links among these in particular, grounded these research 

different modes of participation typically traditions.

requires the creation of new community

institutions) emphasizes the need in organizing, Morton Deutsch initiated, in the 1950's, the 

to move beyond ad hoc contacts to new main tradition of social psychological conflict

patterns of working together. It is necessary to resolution research. This tradition has focused 

leave something behind which endures because on the identification of the conditions under

the community has experienced its value. which participants will evolve a cooperative or 

These assumptions suggest a basic hypothesis: permits either. The findings of this tradition

breaking community patterns and creating new support the idea that successful experience with

patterns occurs when community members cooperation leads to the development of more

realize through their actions and experience of general and long-range cooperative 

other people’s actions that they are part of orientations.

something that makes gut sense, that works, 

and that is generally recognized as successful. Mansur Olson, an economist, initiated in the

This circles of influence theory did not evolve science research on the conditions of collective

out of study and research but rather out of action. The key idea in this tradition is that the

practical experience of Dr. Robert Waldman, mass of people make the commitments 

an organizational expert who developed the required to effect social or structural change

concept for the DPS’s. In the late 1960's, Dr. primarily on the basis of their awareness of the

Waldman worked as a community organizer in individual benefits and costs associated with

a west Baltimore neighborhood troubled by their commitments. The findings of this 

housing speculation, crime, and a lack of tradition support the need for inclusive

public services, including police who did not involvement in the process to develop a 

respond to calls. In trying to work out a way to personal stake in movement outcomes.

deal with this situation, he got ideas from three

sources: Alinski community organizers who Charles Tilley, a historical sociologist, initiated

were in Baltimore at the time, a friend who in the 1960's a tradition of research using

was involved with Steelworkers Union secondary data on the historical development 

organizers, and his brother who was at Da and impact of social movements. The key idea 

Nang in psychological operations and had left in this research is that social structural change 

him material on Viet Cong organization is a function of the interaction of long-term

strategies. historical trends and purposeful efforts to affect

science research. The work of four individuals,

a competitive relationship in a situation which

1940's a tradition of interdisciplinary social
J-3

the course of change. The findings of this The origins of the concept are offered as more

tradition support the importance of the than an intellectual exercise. The underlying

opportunistic exploitation of the circumstances concepts discussed above can be turned into

at a point in time to move beyond planning to questions managers can use to assess the 

actual change. degree of support they have achieved from the

Finally, Richard Emerson, a sociologist, 

initiated in the 1970's a tradition which ! do team members rate early, short term

integrated ideas from behaviorist psychology, experiences such as the first workshop as

market economics, and the anthropology of successful? (experience with cooperation

nonindustrial cultures. leading to committed cooperation) 

A key insight of this tradition is a broadening ! do team members have and perceive a

of the concept of exchange beyond personal stake in the process? 

supply-demand or benefit-cost transactions to

include commitments to an exchange system in ! do they understand that the DPS may be a

spite of transactions which might be unique opportunity to address these problems

unfavorable to an individual at a point in time. collaboratively and that it must be exploited? 

In the context of a DPS, the commitment to an

exchange system would mean cooperation with ! do team members see both long term,

a long-term drought strategy in spite of uneven widespread benefits and the short term risks 

immediate benefits and costs. The and costs of participating in a collaborative

commitment would still occur because of a study?

stake in the strategy itself and the belief that

rules for distributing costs and benefits over 

time are fair.

DPS team:

K-1

K - FORECASTING WATER USE TO MANAGE WATER CONSERVATION

Sophisticated water use forecasting methods subsequent studies have used information from

are now commonly used to size future water this early research project. The project was

supply projects, and are being used more often sponsored by the Federal Housing

as the basis for measuring the potential savings Administration in cooperation with 16

from long term conservation measures. participating utilities from throughout the 

Algorithms have been available to estimate the United States. Master-meter, punched tape

savings from combinations of curtailment recorder systems were installed to continuously

measures that reduce water use just during monitor water flow into 39 homogeneous

droughts. Although this use is far less residential areas served by the 16 water 

common, the latest version of the most widely utilities. The 39 study areas ranged in size 

known water forecasting model should make from 34 dwelling units to 2,373 dwelling units. 

the practice much more common.

The purpose of this annex is to present the Institute for Water Resources (IWR) of the 

importance of water use forecasting methods in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted

designing drought curtailment plans and research to develop methods for evaluating

determining the relationship between long term municipal and industrial water conservation

conservation measures and the potential to plans, including improving water use 

secure additional demand management savings forecasting capabilities. Probably the best 

during drought. In addition, this annex known product of this body of research is the

provides a brief explanation of disaggregated series of computerized water use forecasting

water use forecasting.

History. Simple per capita projections of 

future water use were used to size city water

supply systems until the 1960's, when concerns

about water supply limitations and the

environmental impacts of structural water

projects stimulated the development of

disaggregated water use forecasts. 

“Disaggregated” forecasts identify component

variables such as climate, price and household

size that can be related mathematically to water

use; water use forecasts are then based on

projections of those variables.

A classic study of residential water use was

conducted at Johns Hopkins University from

1961 to 1966 to determine the water use 

patterns and demand rates imposed on water

systems in residential areas and to define the

major factors influencing residential water use

(Howe and Linaweaver 1967). A number of

During the late 1970's and early 1980's, the

models called IWR-MAIN (Institute for Water

Resources Municipal And Industrial Needs). 

A recently developed computer program called

IWRAPS correlates water use on military bases

with the area of dozens of facility types such 

as hospitals, bachelor housing, and

administration.

IWR-MAIN has been used in many fast 

growing cities in the western United States,

including the metropolitan areas of Southern

California, Las Vegas and Phoenix. 

Disaggregated forecasts not incorporating IWRMAIN have been done in other cities, such as

Seattle, and still others cities have used hybrid

systems, usually spreadsheet models with 

some, but not all of IWR-MAIN’s equations. 

Applications in long term planning.

Disaggregated forecasts allow more reliable

forecasts of unconstrained water use, that is
K-2

water use that would take place if there were 

no limit on supply. But disaggregation can 

also help planners estimate the effectiveness of

water conservation programs. The newest

version of IWR-MAIN, in beta testing as this

report goes to press, includes two separate and

independent water use forecasting strategies. 

The first is more similar to earlier versions of

MAIN, although the indicator variables have

been changed (for example household income 

is now used instead of housing prices). The

second forecast approach is based on estimates

of twenty end uses, such as toilets, urinals,

showers, and evaporative coolers. Each end 

use itself has several component factors that

affect how much water will be used in that 

type of fixture throughout the study area. This

“ultimate” disaggregation offers the greatest

promise for evaluating the effects of specific

conservation programs, such as rebates to

retrofit toilets that use less than 2 gallons of

water per flush.

Applications in drought curtailment needs of an expanding population. When long

planning. Disaggregated water use forecasting term conservation is used in lieu of additional

methods can also aid in designing drought supplies, there is a potential for reducing the

curtailment programs. For example, sprinkling effectiveness of curtailment measures. For

bans are among the most commonly used example, as a city converted from turf to

curtailment measures; a city that has developed xeriscaping and used that water inside the

long term water forecasts using the use homes of new residents, sprinkling bans would

categories of IWR-MAIN would have lose their effectiveness as curtailment 

calibrated estimates of outdoor water use for measures. On the other hand, water saved 

each of several classes of residential single and from leak detection programs, even if used to

multi-family homes. The calibration of supply new customers, would not affect short

disaggregated forecasts requires the close term curtailment plans, since water savings 

examination and allows the careful accounting from leak detection and repair takes much 

of water use by category, including water lost more time to realize than saving from banning

to leaks. The more reliable the estimate of lawn watering.

outdoor water use, the better the estimate of 

the savings provided by sprinkling bans. 

These estimates are not just important for

assuring that competing uses can be met; they

can also be used to adjust water prices to 

assure that utility revenue can cover expenses Water use forecasting can be characterized by

during the drought. (1) the level of complexity of the mathematical

Application in balancing long term water

conservation and the “cushion” of

curtailment during a drought. Water

managers have often expressed the concern that

long term conservation eliminates the “fat” that

can be cut into when cutbacks are necessary to

survive a drought. William Elliott, of the 

Water Supply Citizens Advisory Committee in

Massachusetts, debunks the notion that

conservation is the villain by pointing out that 

if it were good to have “fat” to cut into, the 

best preparation for drought would be to leave

faucets running all the time. Mathematically it 

is clear that, to the extent that water saved in

conservation programs can be stored, it can 

even reduce the frequency and impacts of 

urban water shortages.

But although water conservation can reduce

water and energy costs, one of its primary

purposes is to spread available supplies among

more customers. In fact, it is often touted as 

the least cost method of meeting the water 

Water Use Forecasting Methods

relationships between water use and 

explanatory variables or determinants of water
K-3

use, and (2) the level of sectoral, spatial, climate (arid or humid); weather conditions; 

seasonal, and other disaggregation of water and water conservation programs. A

users. Disaggregation refers to making disaggregated forecast may involve any number

separate estimates for categories and of equations representing various categories 

subcategories of water use. For example, and subcategories of water use. Up to a point, 

sectoral disaggregation involves separate water greater forecast accuracy and greater flexibility

use predictions for residential, commercial, in representing alternative future scenarios and

industrial, institutional, and public uses which, management strategies can be achieved by

in turn, can each be divided into numerous increased disaggregation and inclusion of more

subcategories. The separate water use forecasts explanatory variables in the forecast equations.

are aggregated or added together to obtain the The exact form of each forecast equation and

total water use. value for the coefficients can be determined 

In the simplest disaggregated forecasts, water for the particular study area. Alternatively,

use per customer coefficients are estimated for generic equations have been developed based 

each customer class. Thus, water use forecasts on data from many study areas representative 

can reflect varied growth rates among the of geographic regions or the entire nation. 

customers. Commercial and industrial water Water use forecasting methods are sometimes

use is commonly forecast on a per employee differentiated as being either requirements

basis. Disaggregated forecasts for specific models or demand models. Requirements 

sectoral categories are frequently expressed as models do not include the price of water, or 

a single coefficient function of other variables, other economic factors as explanatory 

such as number of hotel rooms or hospital variables, thus implying that water use is an

beds. absolute requirement unaffected by economic

Water use forecasting models are often based water to the user as an explanatory variable, as

on regression equations which relate mean or well as related economic variables such as

peak water use rates to one or more income.

determinants of water use (explanatory

variables). A typical general form of the The water use forecasting methods noted above

regression equations is as follows: are based on projections of future values for 

Q = " + $X + (X + ... + +>X required to develop the coefficients in the 1 2 n

a b m

where: a key consideration in water use forecasting.

Q = forecasted water use rate Data are available from a variety of sources. 

X = explanatory variables For example, historical data and future

n = number of explanatory variables projections related to population, personal

" - > = regression coefficients or income, housing, and employment can be

parameters obtained from published census data and

Typical examples of explanatory variables planning agencies, econometric firms, and state

include: resident and seasonal population; and national statistical abstracts. Climate data 

personal income; number, market value, and is available from National Weather Service

types of housing units; employment; publications as well as from various federal,

manufacturing output; water and wastewater state, and local agencies. Water use data for the

prices and rate structures; irrigated acreage; study area and information regarding local 

from regression analyses of past water use data

choice. Demand models include the price of

the determinants of water use. Data is also

regression equations. Thus, data availability is 

OBERS regional projections, local and state
K-4

water and wastewater pricing and water forecasts utilize approximately 130 specific

conservation programs are obtained from water categories of water use.

utilities and local agencies.

IWR-MAIN

The IWR-MAIN Water Use Forecasting categories, price of water and sewer service,

System is a software package which provides a climate and weather conditions, and 

variety of forecasting models, socioeconomic conservation programs.

parameter generating procedures, and data

management capabilities. Preparation of an IWR-MAIN water use 

IWR-MAIN was originally based on the MAIN empirical equations and coefficients for

model developed by Hittman Associates, Inc., estimating water use and (2) projection of 

in the late 1960's for the U.S. Office of Water future values of determinants of water use.

Resources Research, which was in turn based Model verification is accomplished by 

on earlier work by Howe and Linaweaver preparing independent estimates of water use 

(1967) and others. In the early 1980's, the for one or more historical years and comparing

Institute for Water Resources (IWR) adopted these estimates with actual water use 

and modified MAIN and renamed the revised conditions. If necessary, the model can be

model IWR-MAIN. During the 1980's, calibrated. The base year is the year from 

IWR-MAIN evolved through several versions which values of explanatory variables are

representing major modifications. Version 5.1 projected. A calendar year that coincides with 

has recently been replaced by Version 6.0. The the U.S. Census of Population and Housing is

model is available by contacting IWR or typically selected as the base year. One or 

Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. more subsequent years are selected as the

(PMCL). PMCL periodically offers a training forecast years for which water use is predicted.

course on application of IWR-MAIN, in

coordination with IWR and the American 

Public Works Association.

IWR-MAIN is a flexible municipal and IWR-MAIN 6.0 and the previous version, 5.1,

industrial water use forecasting system. are both disaggregated forecasting models, but

Forecasts are made for average daily water use, differ in several significant ways:

winter daily water use, summer daily water 

use, and maximum-day summer water use. ! Both versions forecast residential use by

IWR-MAIN provides capabilities for highly correlating it to several variables such as 

disaggregated forecasts. Water requirements are price and housing density. There is one

estimated separately for the residential, important change in the set of variables: 

commercial/institutional, industrial, and Version 6.0 forecasts based on household

public/unaccounted sectors. Within these major income, whereas 5.1 uses housing values. A

sectors, water use estimates are further comparative study in the Metropolitan Water

disaggregated into categories such as metered District of Southern California showed that a

and sewered residences, commercial forecast based on household income is less

establishments, and three-digit SIC likely to be skewed by regional housing

manufacturing categories. A maximum of 284 locational premiums.

categories can be accommodated, but most

Water use is estimated as a function of one or

more explanatory variables such as number of

users, number of employees in nonresidential

forecast requires: (1) verification of the

Comparing IWR-MAIN Version 5.1 and

Version 6.0
K-5

! Version 6.0 has a supplemental forecasting ! Version 5.1 and 6.0 create and manipulate

system by “end-use” categories (faucets, data bases in the process of developing

toilets, washing machines, etc.) that can be forecasts, but Version 6.0 has greater 

used to estimate the effectiveness of water database management handling capability.

conservation measures. Version 6.0 is able 

to use these forecasts to estimate the ! Version 6.0 embodies the current state of

benefit/cost ratio for various conservation knowledge of water use behavior in 

strategies. residential and non-residential sectors. All

! Version 6.0 uses more standardized coefficients that correlate water use with 

demographic information than Version 5.1, many explanatory variables. These default

and it is easier to input. coefficients are based on studies of the

! Version 6.0 divides residential use into selected parameters. Version 6.0 benefits

different categories from Version 5.1. The from many new studies across the country 

advantage of the change is that there are that have been published since Version 5.1

Census data to support the percentages of was inaugurated.

residences in each category Version 6.0 uses. 

In 5.1, the number of residences in each ! Version 6.0 uses a “friendlier” user

category could be estimated only after interface.

considerable research.

! Version 6.0 can forecast non-residential better forecasts with less work. Perhaps more

water use based on major industry groups importantly, the new IWR-MAIN is much 

and 2 or 3 digit Standard Industrial Code 

(SIC) employment forecasts. This allows

forecasters to make the forecast more or less

disaggregated, depending on the need to do 

so versus the costs and availability of data. 

(A note of explanation: SIC’s create a 

nested classification of commercial, 

industrial, and public water users. For

example, all construction activities have a 

code that starts with a “1”; “15” is for 

general building contractors, and “152” is for

residential building construction. These SIC

designations are used for a wide variety of

statistical purposes, and forecasts of

employment in each are made by the U.S.

Census.)

versions of MAIN include default 

relationship between water use and the

These changes mean that 6.0 will produce 

more helpful in determining the effectiveness 

of long term conservation measures.
K-6

Changing Water Use in Selected Manufacturing Industries October 1974

The Role of Conservation in Water Supply Planning April 1979

An Annotated Bibliography on Water Conservation April 1979

The Evaluation of Water Conservation for Municipal and Industrial 

Water Supply, Procedures Manual

April 1980

Selected Works in Water Supply, Water Conservation and Water Quality

Planning

May 1981

An Annotated Bibliography on Techniques of Forecasting Demand for 

Water 

May 1981

An Assessment of Municipal and Industrial Water Use Forecasting

Approaches

May 1981

The Evaluation of Water Conservation for Municipal and Industrial Water

Supply, Illustrative Examples (Volume II)

 February 1981

Analytical Bibliography for Water Supply and Conservation Techniques January 1982

The State of the States in Water Supply/Conservation 

Planning and Management Programs 

January 1983

Forecasting Municipal and Industrial Water Use - IWR Main System 

User’s Guide for Interactive Processing and User’s Manual

July 1983

Forecasting Municipal and Industrial Water Use: A Handbook of Methods July 1983

Influence of Price and Rate Structures on Municipal and Industrial Water 

Use

June 1984

Handbook of Methods for the Evaluation of Water Conservation for

Municipal and Industrial Water Supply

October 1985

IWR-Main Water Use Forecasting System Version 5.1 June 1988

Water Use Forecasts for the Boston Area Using IWR-MAIN 6.0 August 1994

TABLE K-I. WATER CONSERVATION REPORTS FROM THE IWR CONSERVATION PROGRAM
L-1

! The complexity of impacts of a sustained

drought demands more sophisticated 

planning.

! Severe drought can change longstanding

relationships and balances of power in the

competition for water.

! Irrigation can provide complementary

environmental benefits.

! Drought can force water supply solutions on 

a community that they would not have

otherwise accepted.

! The success of drought response plans should

be measured in terms of the minimization 

and equitable redistribution of the impacts 

(as opposed to shortages), but there is much 

to be learned about the best ways of

accomplishing this goal.

! Severe droughts can expose inadequacies in 

the existing roles and performance of state 

and federal water institutions, causing

significant institutional and legal changes.

! Increases in water rates should precede or

accompany rationing plans.

! Mass media can play a positive role in 

drought response, but only if water managers

help design the message.

! Market forces are an effective way of

reallocating restricted water supplies.

TABLE L-I. LESSONS FROM THE 1987-1992

DROUGHT

L - LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CALIFORNIA DROUGHT 1987-1992

One of the most valuable sources of 

information about how to prepare for drought 

is the experiences of those who have survived 

a severe drought. The full value of these

experiences, though, can be realized only if the

lessons are recorded, critically analyzed, and

communicated to others who can use the

information. That was the objective of the

National Drought Study analysis of the

California drought. This “Lessons Learned”

study captured the views of some 100 key

members of the California water community,

representing 57 organizations. The participating

organizations included federal, state, regional,

and local water supply agencies as well as

environmental, private, and governmental 

entities that control and influence water

management in the state.

The approach used to identify the important

lessons of the drought consisted of three

activities:

@ Literature review of published and

unpublished documents

@ Field interviews, and

@ Critical review of the draft findings by 

survey participants and other water

professionals.

The lessons are shown in Table L-I. Lessons

learned in previous droughts and confirmed in

the 1987-92 drought are displayed in Table

L-II.
L-2

! Groundwater continues to be the most 

effective strategic weapon against drought.

! The surest way to mitigate the adverse social,

environmental, and economic impacts of a

sustained drought is to ensure that more 

water is made available through a variety of

management measures.

! Early drought response actions and proper

timing of tactical measures are essential in 

the short-term management of droughts

! Local and regional interconnections among

water supply systems proved to be a good

insurance policy against severe water

shortages.

TABLE L-II. LESSONS FROM PREVIOUS 

DROUGHTS CONFIRMED IN THE 1987-1992

DROUGHT

FIGURE L-1. TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA WATER 

USE

Background. While the statistics on per capita

freshwater withdrawals do not distinguish

California from other states, the statistics on

consumptive net water use in California are

noteworthy. The state accounts for almost 22

percent of total consumptive use in the nation,

nearly twice its share of population (Solley

1993). This situation can be attributed to

intensive agricultural and manufacturing

activities throughout the state.

A major portion of the state is served by two

primary suppliers who operate an extensive

system of storage reservoirs and aqueducts: the

State Water Project (SWP) and the Central

Valley Project (CVP). The distribution system

reaches 75 percent of the state’s population

(CDWR 1987). Both projects export water 

from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 

which has become the focal point of a number 

of water related issues. 

Groundwater supplies about one-third of the

water for urban and agricultural use in 

California in an average year. During a year 

of average precipitation and runoff, an 

estimated 14 million acre feet (MAF) of

groundwater is extracted and applied for

agricultural, municipal, and industrial use. The

average annual net groundwater use (total

extracted minus recharge from applied water) 

for the state is 8.5 MAF. This rate of

groundwater extraction exceeds the average

recharge by about 1 MAF, but it represents a

reduction from earlier years when extraction

exceeded recharge by 2 MAF. Groundwater 

use varies from 20 to 90 percent of applied 

water withdrawn, depending on the region.

California’s $20 billion dollar agricultural 

sector (CDWR 1990) uses much more water 

than other sectors, although in recent years the

percentage has declined. In 1980, net

agricultural water use was 80.1 percent of total

net water use. By 1985, that had declined to 

78.8 percent. California’s projected population

growth is expected to result in an increase in 

net urban water use between 1985 and 2010

(Figure L-1). This increase will take place

largely in the state’s coastal regions, where 80

percent of California’s current population is

concentrated. The urban percentage of total net

water use is also expected to increase during 

that period by about four percent.
0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year

Percent

Reservoir storage during 1977 record low one year precipitation

L-3

FIGURE L-2. TWO SIX YEAR CALIFORNIA

DROUGHTS OF THE 20TH CENTURY

FIGURE L-4. 1987-1992 RESERVOIR STORAGE

FIGURE L-5. 1987-1992 WATER YEAR RUNOFF 

FIGURE L-3. PRECIPITATION 1987-1992 SEVERITY OF THE 1987-1992 DROUGHT

The 1987-1992 Drought was not “the big one”. 

The National Drought Atlas (NDS-4) does not

estimate probabilities of droughts longer than 5

years in duration, so an estimate of the rarity 

of this 6 year drought cannot be made directly. 

However, according to the Atlas, no five year

precipitation total (i.e., 1987-1991 or 1988-

1992) in any of California’s ten hydrologic

regions was more rare than a fifty year 

drought. By at least one important measure 

(the Sacramento River Index) this drought was

very similar to another six year drought that

occurred from 1929 to 1934 (Figure L-2). 

Finally, as Figures L-3 through 6 show, no

individual year from 1987 to 1992 was nearly 

as severe as the 1977 water year. In short,

although this was a severe drought, planners

should expect one as bad or worse in the next

century.
100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

150 

160 

170 

180 

190 

200 

210 

220 

80-81

81-82

82-83

83-84

84-85

85-86

86-87

87-88

88-89

89-90

90-91

91-92

92-93

GALLONS

Conservation Effort

Started Summer 1990

Fiscal Years

L-4

FIGURE L-6. EAST BAY MUD WATER USE 1982-91

(EBMUD, 1994).

FIGURE L-7. WATER USE AND POPULATION 

GROWTH FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

(LADWP, 1994).

FIGURE L-8. SAN DIEGO PER CAPITA

CONSUMPTION, WATER YEAR ENDING JUNE 30

(CITY OF SAN DIEGO. 1992).

DROUGHT RESPONSES

Water Allocation and Deliveries

Those entitled to water from the SWP and 

CVP did not suffer any significant reductions 

in deliveries until 1990. These two major

projects supply water for agricultural and

municipal water uses, with the SWP accounting

for 7.4 percent and the CVP providing 21.7

percent of California’s supplies during the first

three years of the drought. However in 1990,

drawdown in project reservoirs prompted the

first major cutbacks in CVP and SWP 

deliveries. The drought conditions intensified 

in 1991, necessitating even more drastic

reductions in water deliveries.

Urban Water Conservation

Figures L-7 to L-9 display how Oakland, Los

Angeles, and San Diego reduced water use

during the drought. The East Bay Municipal

Utility District (EBMUD) which supplies water

to urban customers in the Oakland area, 

initiated conservation measures in 1988. Los

Angeles and San Diego started to conserve in

1990. Across the state, demand management

efforts consisted of both voluntary and

mandatory conservation programs during the

first three years of the drought, with target

reductions in water use ranging from 10 to 25

percent.

A survey of local governments in Southern

California conducted by the Los Angeles 

Times (April 1990), indicated that there were

voluntary conservation programs in 45

communities, whereas conservation was

mandated in only 17 communities. As the

drought progressed into the fifth year (1991), 

the “Miracle March” rains and the success of 

the Water Bank (below) helped most

communities cope with water shortages. The

results of a survey conducted in May 1991

showed water use reduction goals among the 

11 members of the California Urban Water 
L-5

FIGURE L-9. CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN

GROUNDWATER STORAGE FROM 1970-1992

FIGURE L-10. WATER BANK ALLOCATIONS:

1991-1992 (CDWR 1993)

Agencies (CUWA) varied from a low of 10

percent for the Los Angeles Department of

Water and Power, to a high of 31 percent for

MWD.

One important development at the end of the

fifth year (September 1991) was the signing of

the Best Management Practices (BMP’s),

statewide agreement monitored by the 

California Urban Water Council. The

conservation program pursued by the water

agencies in the sixth year (1992) included 

some of the 16 BMP’s advocated in the

Memorandum of Understanding agreement. 

Components of this program included

educational publications, technical workshops,

business conferences, training courses, water 

use surveys, water management studies, and a

telephone hotline.

Groundwater Withdrawals

California’s groundwater basins provided a

reliable source of water during the 1987-1992

drought, similar to its role during previous

droughts. Increased extraction in combination 

with other factors such as reduced recharge

resulted in decreased groundwater storage

during the drought. The change in 

groundwater storage during the drought for 

three different regions of the Central valley is

shown in Figure L-9. These regions are

important because they are the largest

agricultural producers in California, and

represent 65% of the average net groundwater

used in the state (CDWR 1993).

The State Drought Emergency Water Bank of

1991

The fifth year of drought (1991) brought Other Responses

greater water shortages (following the first

significant SWP and CVP cutbacks in the 

fourth year of drought), and on February 1,

1991, the Governor signed Executive Order 

No. W-3-91 that established the Drought 

Action Team. The executive order established a

State Drought Emergency Water Bank. The

Bank provided water for environmental, urban,

and agricultural use (Figure L-10). The

establishment of the Emergency Water Bank 

was a major innovation. It created a voluntary

market for the transfer of water on an 

economic basis. The Emergency Water Bank

would not have been possible without the 

CVP-SWP conveyance facilities. 

Discussions among representatives from the

agricultural, urban, and environmental groups

referred to as the “Three-Way Process” began

before the drought, but received considerable
L-6

FIGURE L-11. NATURAL FALL-RUN CHINOOK

SPAWNING SALMON (1980-91) media attention as the drought intensified. The

process did not produce tangible products

during the drought; in fact, it became bogged

down by the conflicting agendas of the various

interest groups, just as it has for decades. 

However, respondents in this study felt that the

process improved working relationships 

between competing interest groups, forming

relationships which continue today.

IMPACTS

Impacts from the long drought were felt to 

some degree in many water use sectors. 

According to many observers, including the

California Department of Water Resources

(1991b), probably the most severe impacts of

the drought were suffered by fisheries and

aquatic resources, particularly species such as

salmon. The population of the fall-run chinook and commercial industries has been attributed 

salmon declined to its lowest numbers in the to a number of factors, including exemptions 

last two decades (Figure L-11) despite for some industries from mandatory water

consistent hatchery production. How much of allocation rules, implementation of new water

this population decline might be attributed to conservation practices, and in a few cases,

drought is not known, since the population substitution of groundwater for surface water. 

decline might also have been affected by The drought reduced hydroelectric power

record catches of salmon off the nearby Pacific generation. Hydroelectric plants typically

Coast. Agriculture did not suffer substantial provide 33-40% of the total electrical energy

impacts until 1991, the fifth year of the produced in California. From 1987 through

drought, when revenue declined slightly from a 1990, that percentage was never more than 

record of $18.3 billion in 1990. Direct 20%. The drought cost state ratepayers about 

agricultural revenue losses during the drought $3 billion (increase in marginal cost) as a 

were about $250 million (CDWR, 1992). The result of lost energy production. Utilities

loss in consumer and producer surplus, a truer replaced this power by natural gas and out-ofmeasure of the impact to society, was $276.3 state power purchases (CDWR 1991b). 

million in California, but only $80 million Table L-III summarizes some of the economic

nationally because of the increases in farm loss estimates.

production elsewhere in the country. The only

industry that was significantly affected by the Given the sustained turmoil and press coverage

drought was the “Green Industry” (Cowdin and surrounding the California drought, it is

Rich 1994, in prep), including landscaping and surprising to see how small the economic

gardening. Drought-induced economic losses impacts of the drought were. And in the sector

in 1991 were estimated to include the loss of with the largest economic impacts by far,

about 5,630 full-time jobs, and about $460 hydropower, there was little controversy. 

million in gross revenue, a 7% decline from Somewhere therein lies perhaps the most

1990. The lack of impacts in other industrial fundamental lesson for drought planners

elsewhere in the country: that the degree of
L-7

Sector Duration Loss ($) Sector Revenue in

1990

Study

Agriculture 1991 $276 million $18 billion NDS-10

Hydropower 1987-1992 $3.8 billion $62 billion U.S.E.L.A. 1993

Table L-II. Estimates of Economic Impacts

conflict is not necessarily a function of the among stakeholders than the absolute reduction

likely value of impacts. The uncertainty that is of the expected value of impacts. That in turn

intellectually recognized by water managers is argues for involvement of stakeholders in the

felt more personally by those who “hold stake” planning process, because that allows them to

in the allocation of scarce water, even by those understand the risks and prepare for them

who advocate a philosophy of use. It suggests personally while there is still time to do so.

that reductions in drought conflicts are more

likely to come from the reduction of anxiety
L-8
4

1 2

5

6

8

9

3 1 2

9

4

8

7

6

5

9

10

Figure M-1. Case Studies Conducted During the National Drought Study

M - A Summary of the Principal National Drought Study Case Studies

Four river basins were chosen to test and refine 1. Kanawha River DPS (WV, NC, VA)

the “DPS Method” of managing water during 2. James River DPS (VA)

drought. In addition, smaller studies were 3. Marais des Cygnes-Osage Rivers DPS (KAconducted in the Boston and Harrisburg areas. MO)

The National Drought Study collaborated with 4. Cedar-Green Rivers DPS (WA)

a team of western universities on a gaming 5. The Boston Area (MA)

exercise in which the Colorado River States 6. Susquehanna River Basin (PA)

experienced a severe (computer simulated) 7. Colorado River (7 states)

drought. The DPS method is now being tested 8. California (Lessons Learned, Impacts from

at two Corps lakes (9 and 10) to determine its the Drought)

effectiveness as a method to develop reservoir 9. Rogue River, Lost Creek Lake (OR)

drought contingency plans under limited 10. Youghiogheny River Lake (PA)

budgets and time.
M-2
M-3

The planning methods described in this report The Kanawha main stem is formed by the

were first published in 1991 (NDS-1) and have junction of the New and Gauley Rivers, and

since been tested and refined in four Drought flows northwest 97 miles before emptying into

Preparedness Studies (DPS’s) across the United the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, West 

States. The study sites were chosen from 28 Virginia. Other major tributaries are the

nominated sites to represent a cross section of Greenbriar and the Elk. The Corps is the

issues in American water management. To primary water manager, operating locks and

supplement that experience, smaller studies that multi-purpose reservoirs at Lakes Summersville

focused on specific issues were conducted in (Elk River), Bluestone and Sutton (on the New

Boston and the Susquehanna River Basin. River). The Appalachian Power Company,

Finally, many of these methods were used in a which runs the hydropower plants on all three

collaboration between the National Drought Corps reservoirs, also owns and operates 

Study and the “Study of Severe Sustained Claytor Lake, on the upper New River. Claytor

Drought in the Southeastern United States”, a Lake also supports lake recreation.

comprehensive analysis of what would happen 

in the Colorado basin and California if an The most recent drought started with below

extreme drought were to occur in the near average rainfall in the summer of 1987, and

future. persisted through the fall of 1988, with

Each of these studies lasted over two years. the summer of 1988. During that drought,

The DPS’s will be described more fully in releases from Summersville and Sutton were

Lessons Learned from the National Drought kept high enough through August to meet

Study Case Studies (NDS-15). Colorado River minimum instream flows established to dilute

Gaming Exercise (NDS-14) describes that work downstream effluents. By August, there was 

in more detail. The summaries of these studies no longer enough water in the reservoir to

that follow describe the primary conflicts, the support daily pulsed releases for whitewater

participants, and the changes that occurred, or rafting or meet minimum instream flow

are in the process of occurring. One DPS, the requirements. The restriction of rafting 

Marais des Cygnes-Osage, was suspended releases to just weekends cost the region 

during the summer of 1993 because the entire millions in tourism revenue. For the tourists

“Circle A” of the study team became involved coming from all over the world, it created, for 

in the efforts to control and monitor the the first time, doubts about the dependability 

flooding damage on the Missouri and of the rafting experience. Releases from Corps

Mississippi Rivers. That DPS is expected to reservoirs kept dissolved oxygen levels above 5

resume in March 1994 and conclude in the fall mg/l, the state minimum, until August 1988. 

of 1994. Then, with the reservoirs running out of water,

The Drought Preparedness Studies

1. The challenge for the Kanawha River DPS

team was to strike a better balance between 

water quality, lake boating, and white water

rafting below Lake Summersville on the 

Gauley River, a tributary to the Kanawha. 

The Kanawha drains 12,300 square miles in

North Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia. 

temperatures several degrees above normal in 

and temperatures at their highest, the levels of

dissolved oxygen dropped, sometimes to less

than 3.5 mg/l.

Circles A and B in the Kanawha included the

Huntington District Corps of Engineers 

(planning and water control), the West Virginia

Division of Water Resources, the U.S.

Geological Survey, the West Virginia 

Geological Survey, and representatives from 

the whitewater outfitters. Circle “C” included 
Summersville Lake

Charleston

Bluestone

Lake

Gauley River

Sutton Lake

Claytor

Lake

North Carolina

Little River

WestVirginia Virginia

M-4

FIGURE M-2. THE KANAWHA RIVER BASIN
M-5

1. Increase the reliability and value of the

Gauley River whitewater rafting experience

during drought conditions.

2. Increase reliability of the recreational

opportunities in-stream and on lakes in the

Kanawha River basin during drought.

3. Increase the reliability of navigation on the

Kanawha River during drought.

4. Increase the reliability of hydropower

generation in the Kanawha River basin during

drought.

THE PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE 

KANAWHA RIVER DPS

natural and water resources departments from 

all three states, including departments of

fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Trout Unlimited, the Isaak Walton League,

regional councils of government, the National

Weather Service, Offices of Emergency 

Service, the North Carolina Regional Council 

of Governments, the Kanawha Valley Chemical

industry, and municipal water suppliers.

Changes as a result of this DPS. The study

team first quickly looked at a broad range of

tactical and strategic plans, up to and including

the construction of additional reservoirs. 

Almost all but the tactical alternatives were

eliminated early in the study process as

improbable because of the amount of time

necessary to develop solutions and because of

environmental concerns. After the 

collaborative planning model was developed, 

the remaining alternatives were screened to see

how well they addressed the planning 

objectives. Planners found that modifications 

to Claytor Lake, Bluestone, and Sutton did not

significantly address the planning objectives. 

In a workshop in the spring of 1993, Circle B

team members compared five alternatives for

Summersville Lake to the status quo plan.

Plan 1 was to modify the dam at Summersville

to allow the summer pool level to be 17 feet

higher. Plan 2 called for relaxation of water

quality target flows. (A USGS survey showed

that BOD loadings had been dramatically

reduced since the standards were set). Plan 3

was to ignore the rules that limited releases 

from Summersville in the fall (lower limiting 

rule curve) in order to maintain a preset

minimum level of storage. Plan 4 delayed the

starting date for water quality releases from 

June 15 to July 15th unless water samples

showed a need for the releases. Plan 5 was to

vary the maximum water quality release from

Summersville, starting at 500 cfs (instead of

1000 cfs) and increasing through August (the

month in 1988 when releases were cut to 400 

cfs because of the lower limiting rule curve).

Workshop participants watched as the shared

vision model was run to demonstrate the 

impacts of each alternative during a one and 

two year drought. Measures of performance 

for each objective were compared. After three

hours of model runs, Dr. Richard Punnett, head

of the water control section of the Huntington

District Corps of Engineers, led a workshop

exercise designed to facilitate the transition 

from individual plan evaluations to the

endorsement and implementation of a plan. 

This exercise is described in Chapter 8 of this

report because of its general usefulness as a 

tool for clarifying the final decision making

process.

The analysis showed that Plans 4 and 5 helped

water quality, rafting, and lake recreation, 

while not affecting hydropower or navigation. 

Plan 2 helped rafters, but hurt lake recreation; 

Plan 3 did just the opposite. Because plans 4 

and 5 were not mutually exclusive, the 

workshop participants agreed that a plan that

combined the advantages of both should be 

used during the next drought.

In August 1993, the Huntington District used 

the shared vision model and the close
M-6

1. Increase the reliability and level of

municipal water service in the lower James

basin during drought conditions.

2. Increase the population of the nine 

indicator species along various reaches of the

James River during severe droughts.

3. Increase water quality reliability in the

James River basin during drought.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES - JAMES RIVER DPS

collaborative ties it had developed with

stakeholders to react to a potential drought. 

An alternative release strategy was agreed to 

by the DPS team consistent with the general 

form of alternatives 4 and 5. The drought 

watch was lifted after heavier than normal

rainfall. Participants agreed that had the 

drought continued, these operational changes

would have preserved fall water quality and

avoided several million dollars loss in West

Virginia tourist revenue derived from 

whitewater rafting.

2. The James River DPS. The primary mostly from the Isaac Walton League and the

objective of the James River DPS was to Lower James River Association. Circles “B” 

reduce urban drought vulnerability in a five included about 50 organizations including

city region near where the James flows into municipal water utilities, environmental groups,

Chesapeake Bay. The cities, in order from other state and Federal agencies, industries and

most to least vulnerable, are Virginia Beach, industrial groups, and Universities. Circle “C”

Chesapeake, Suffolk, Norfolk and Portsmouth. included a mailing list of about 400 agencies 

They do not use James River water, but instead and individuals.

rely on a mixture of groundwater, local runoff,

and withdrawals from the Nottoway and

Blackwater Rivers. The James River DPS 

team developed a simulation model of the five 

city region using the STELLA II® software, 

and supported a new role for the state of

Virginia.

The James River is located almost entirely in

Virginia (less than 0.1 percent of the basin is 

in West Virginia). The James flows 340 miles

southeast from the Allegheny Mountains on the

West Virginia border to Chesapeake Bay. 

About a fourth of Virginia - 11,000 square 

miles - is in the James River basin. The major Of the five cities, Virginia Beach is the most

tributaries are the Maury, Rivanna, vulnerable. Virginia Beach will have no water

Appomattox, and Chickahominy Rivers. supply of its own until 1996, when the Gaston

Workshops held throughout the basin showed pipeline, now under construction, is scheduled 

that the worst drought problems were in the to carry water from the Roanoke River east

five-city area, although the Lower Peninsula across Virginia. Until then, Virginia Beach 

area and greater Richmond area will probably will rely entirely on water from the city of

have problems in the future. The problem is Norfolk, which also supplies some water to the

not an uncommon one in the U.S.; population city of Chesapeake.

growth is the greatest at the coast, where

groundwater pumping can lead to saltwater

intrusion.

Circle A of the James River DPS team was

made up of staff from the Norfolk District, 

Corps of Engineers, Virginia Department of

Environmental Quality, U.S. Advisory

Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,

Institute for Water Resources, the Virginia 

Water Resources Research Center (Virginia

Polytechnical Institute and State University), 

the city of Virginia Beach, the Appomattox 

River Water Authority, and the University of

Washington. The state has begun to use the 

DPS methods on other river basins. Early

interest from environmental groups came 
Chesapeake Bay

Atlantic Ocean

Suffolk

Chesapeake

Virginia

Beach

Norfolk

Newport 

Portsmouth

News

Drainage Boundary

N

M-7

FIGURE M-3. DROUGHT PROBLEMS IN THE JAMES RIVER BASIN ARE CONCENTRATED IN A 5 CITY

 AREA.

A shortage situation during a non-drought The U.S. Navy, a major economic force in this

period now exists in the city of Virginia Beach. area, at one point owed more than $140,000 in

In 1986, Virginia Beach initiated voluntary fines. It is thought unlikely that Norfolk 

conservation, and in 1991, mandatory use would restrict Navy water use before reducing

restrictions were enforced. Then, in 1992, the amount of water transferred to Virginia

when Norfolk limited Virginia Beach’s demand Beach. The potential impact to the local

to 30 MGD, Virginia Beach instituted year- economy from additional base closures will

round mandatory water use restrictions and a intensify the pressure on Norfolk to assure

limited construction moratorium. Conservation reliable water service to the Navy.

measures have long been implemented in

Virginia Beach, resulting in the very low per

capita water use rate of about 82 GPD.

But the amount of “surplus” water available to

Norfolk during a severe drought may be less 

than 30 mgd. In a 1980-81 drought, Norfolk 

had to institute penalties for water users who

consumed more than 75% of normal amounts. 

Changes as a result of this DPS. In August 

of 1993, the five cities and the Corps 

participated in a workshop in which the shared

vision model of the five city region was used 

to simulate what would happen if the drought 

of 1980-81 were to happen under today’s water

demand and allocation rules. Alternatives

including regional management and conjunctive
M-8

use of emergency wells were examined, but ! dispute adjustment - using state law and

were rejected in favor of the status quo. As of regulation to support parties whose success in

the date of this report, although it appears water negotiations would benefit the public.

unlikely that the DPS will effect a reduction is

short term vulnerability, the five cities are ! arrangement of technical assistance from

considering using the shared vision model to outside the state.

manage droughts collaboratively in the region.

The potential for strategic changes is somewhat

greater. The Virginia Water Commission, a ! a uniform set of principles for making water

group of state legislators and gubernatorial management decisions (used with local needs

appointees, met on July 22, 1993 to consider and data to develop solutions appropriate to a

ideas - including those of the James River DPS community).

team - for a more proactive state water role. 

Testimony was offered by National Drought ! the provision of people, facilities, or money

Study representatives, and the shared vision for planning and data collection.

model was demonstrated. The Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality made a

presentation on components that should be

included in a state water policy. At the end of

the DPS, most observers believed that the state

of Virginia would develop a comprehensive 

state water policy. The New Role for the

Commonwealth of Virginia might include:

! providing technical and political analysis, or

interpreting the needs and perspectives of

various water management groups where

communication among those groups is poor 

now.

! stronger protection of the state’s interest in

local and interstate water issues.

! integration of institutional perspectives 

across regulatory, supply planning, and use; 

across Federal and state responsibilities; and

across legal, engineering, biological, and

economic professional perspectives.

! dispute resolution, either as a facilitator or a

regulator. In the regulatory role, the state 

could readjust power balances among water 

uses by new, or newly enforced regulation.

! a written state water policy.

3. Marais des Cygnes - Osage. The 

primary objective in the Marais des CygnesOsage was to create an interstate working 

group to avoid interstate conflicts over water

during drought. The river is officially 

designated as the Marais des Cygnes from its

source in east-central Kansas to its confluence

with the Little Osage River near Schell City,

Missouri where it becomes the Osage River 

and flows in an easterly direction into the

Missouri River downstream of Jefferson City,

Missouri. The basin is about 250 miles long, 

as much as 100 miles wide, with a drainage 

area of 15,300 square miles. A little less than 

a third of that area is in Kansas.

The Corps has six reservoirs in the basin; 

Melvern, Pomona, and Hillsdale in Kansas,

Stockton, Pomme de Terre, and Harry S. 

Truman in Missouri. Union Electric’s Lake of

the Ozarks is located behind Bagnell dam, just

downstream from Harry S. Truman. Union

Electric uses Lake of the Ozarks for 

hydropower and recreation. Occasionally, in 

the winter months, Lake of the Ozarks

supplements cooling water to a fossil fuel plant

located on the Missouri River.
Pomme de Terre River

Kansas City

Pomme de Terre Lake

Stockton Lake

Melvern Lake

Pomona Lake

Hillsdale Lake

Lake of the Ozarks

Harry S. Truman

Dam and Reservoir

Topeka

Ottawa

Paola

Osawatomie

Harrisonville

Butler

Rich

Hill

Fort

Scott

Nevada

Stockton

Springfield

Bolivar

Clinton

Hermann

Jefferson City

Missouri River

Kansas Missouri

M-9

FIGURE M-4. THE MARAIS DES CYGNES-OSAGE RIVER BASIN

Kansas is an appropriation state with proactive a severe drought to provide electrical power to 

water supply planning, which includes updating a region that includes St. Louis, Missouri. 

of a yearly water plan and partnership with the Most people in the region, however, know 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuing water Lake of the Ozarks as a recreational lake and 

storage in several Corps reservoirs. Missouri is an attraction that induces tourists to spend as

a riparian state in which local management has much as $5 million per week in the region. 

historically been favored over state direction. 

Funding for Missouri’s state water program During a sustained severe drought there are

was threatened during the DPS because of potential negative impacts to municipal and

overall state budget pressures. industrial users in Kansas and Missouri. 

The potential problems in a drought situation Ottawa, Osawatomie, Paola, and Ft. Scott. 

are major impacts on power production and the Municipal users in Missouri include the cities 

recreation industry. For example, a major of Clinton, Springfield, Nevada, Stockton, and

recreation and hydropower issue revolves various Lake of the Ozarks communities. 

around the operation of a private reservoir, Kansas City Power and Light in Kansas uses 

Lake of the Ozarks, the most downstream the water to cool steam generators. 

reservoir in the basin. Created by Union Additionally, hydropower generation exists in 

Electric, the lake could be drawn down during the Harry S. Truman and Stockton Reservoirs.

Municipal users in Kansas include the cities of
M-10

1. Increase the reliability of municipal and

industrial water service in the Marais des

Cygnes - Osage River basin.

2. Increase the reliability of recreation

opportunities during drought at the 6 Federal

reservoirs and 1 non-Federal reservoir in the

Marais des Cygnes - Osage River Basin.

3. Increase the reliability of hydropower

generation during drought at the 2 Federal 

and 1 non-Federal reservoirs in the Marais des

Cygnes - Osage River basin.

4. Increase the dependability of agricultural

production during drought in the Marais des

Cygnes - Osage River basin.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE MARAIS DES

CYGNES-OSAGE RIVER BASIN DPS.

Circles A and B in the Marais des Cygnes -

Osage included the Corps’ Kansas City 

District, the Kansas Water Office and the

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. D. Cedar & Green Rivers DPS. The

Each of these entities developed a portion of Muckleshoot and Tulalip tribes fish these two

the shared vision model. Circle C included rivers that supply water for the cities of Seattle

Kansas City Power and Light, Union Electric, and Tacoma. Droughts in 1987 and 1992 (the

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, latter occurring during this DPS) sensitized 

Missouri Department of Conservation, these communities to the limits on water 

economic development commissions and water supply even in this northwestern rain forest. 

district managers within the basin.

Changes as a result of this DPS. This DPS 

was suspended during the summer of 1993

because the entire region became involved in

efforts to minimize and monitor the flooding

damage on the Missouri River and its 

tributaries.

This DPS is expected to resume in March 

1994. At the time of this writing, participants

from both states reported that the DPS process

had helped improve understanding and

cooperation between the states and the Corps,

but there has been no determination of

alternative plans.

The Cedar and Green Rivers never flow 

together. The Cedar River drains about 188

square miles south and east of Seattle. Its

headwaters are on the western slope of the

Cascade Mountains, from which it flows

westward into Chester Morse Lake. Seattle

draws about two-thirds of its municipal and

industrial water from this lake. From there, the

Cedar flows through Renton into Lake

Washington. The Lake is used to operate the

Corps of Engineers’ Hiram Chittendon 

navigation locks (connecting Lake Washington 

to Puget Sound). The Cedar River provides

about 70% of the total inflow into Lake

Washington.

The Green River basin is south of the Cedar, 

and drains more than twice as much area 

(about 483 square miles). Like the Cedar, the

Green starts on the western slopes of the

Cascades and flows west. The Corps’ Howard

Hansen dam impounds up to 106,000 acre feet 

in the upper part of the basin, before the river

flows through the Green River Valley, settled

now by the communities of Auburn, Kent,

Renton, and Tukwila, where it finally flows 

into the Duwamish River, which in turn 

empties into Elliott Bay in the city of Seattle.

The Corps built Howard Hansen in 1962 to

provide a 100 year level of flood control, water

supply for the city of Tacoma, irrigation, fish

conservation and pollution abatement. 

Commercial fisheries join the Muckleshoot and

Tulalip tribes in a harvest of salmon and 
Lake Washington

Lake Sammamish

Green River

Howard A. Hanson Dam

Seattle's Masonry Dam

Puget Sound

Seattle

Tacoma

M-11

FIGURE M-5. THE CEDAR AND GREEN RIVER BASINS

steelhead trout. Releases from Howard Hansen Following the 1987 drought, several efforts 

are adjusted to supply sufficient instream flows were made statewide to improve regional

to maintain dissolved oxygen levels, and drought preparedness. A state drought

sufficient depths to keep fertilized fish eggs contingency plan was developed and drought

laid along the riverbank covered. relief legislation was enacted. Studies were

The region was ill-prepared to meet this goal initiated by the Seattle Water Department 

when drought occurred in 1987. At this time, (SWD) and Tacoma Water Division (TWD) to

existing guidance for management was either examine ways of improving water use 

limited or outdated and most personnel lacked efficiency. Structural changes were made to 

experience in handling water shortages. the system to increase the quantity of water 

Thus, it was difficult for agencies to resolve that could be delivered. When the DPS was

concerns, come to consensus on an appropriate initiated in 1991, stakeholders were identified

course of action, and respond to drought in a and encouraged to become involved.

timely manner. This experience clearly

demonstrated that improved mechanisms for

interagency coordination during drought were

needed.

Circles A and B in the Cedar and Green DPS

were drawn from the Corps’ Seattle District, 

the University of Washington, the city of

Tacoma, the Muckleshoot Tribe, and the

Washington Departments of Ecology and
M-12

Fisheries. Circle C included the other cities in dialogue is now provided at an annual “refill

the region, including Seattle, county meeting”.

governments, and the Puget Sound Regional

Council of Governments. The Cedar and Typically, representatives from the 

Green River basins are distinct hydrologically, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, Washington

but in almost every other way they are one. Departments of Ecology, Fisheries and 

Most of the principal participants in the Cedar- Wildlife, the Tacoma Water Division, and U.S.

Green DPS have a direct stake in each basin. Fish and Wildlife are present. This meeting

The Corps Seattle District manages structures enables agencies to jointly assess the current

on both basins, although its role is much water supply situation based on precipitation,

greater on the Green. The Muckleshoot and runoff, snowpack and temperatures. It also

Tulalip tribes fished both rivers for centuries, provides an opportunity for fisheries agencies 

and, for the most part, the same state Fisheries to suggest target instream flow levels to protect

and Ecology staff monitor both rivers. resource needs. The process of establishing a

Although Seattle currently obtains no water refill strategy is typically very time consuming,

from the Green, and Tacoma none from the occurring over a period of several weeks. 

Cedar, the cities have discussed creating an When modifications are suggested to the Corps

intertie between the two river basins to reduce initial proposal, the Corps must carefully

drought vulnerability. Moreover, because the examine their potential impacts of a proposed

two cities each deal with the Muckleshoot’s change. This had been done using a large

and Tulalip’s, and with the same state mainframe model. Corps personnel reported 

agencies, each is attentive to the others water that typically, only a few target instream flow

management programs. scenarios or release strategies would be

Changes Resulting from this DPS. The 

Cedar basin model still awaits review and

endorsement by the Seattle Water Department,

but the contributions from the DPS have 

already been successfully used on the Green. 

The Green River basin model was first used to

help agencies establish an agreed upon policy 

for the refill of Howard A. Hanson reservoir

during March, 1993. During the spring of each

year, the Corps selects a refill strategy for

Howard H. Hanson Dam. Their primary

objective is to refill the reservoir to achieve 

98% reliability. Traditionally, the refill 

strategy was developed independently by the

Corps, without explicit consideration of the

interests of other stakeholders. However, this

strategy can significantly impact the welfare of

different anadromous fish species at various 

life stages. It can also potentially impact the

water supply situation later in the season.

Because of these impacts, the process for

establishing a refill strategy has become more

open, and an opportunity for interagency policy

analyzed, due to time constraints. Furthermore,

there was no automated approach for testing

system sensitivity to different instream flow

target levels.

This year, the DPS Green River basin model 

was used as a tool to facilitate interagency 

policy dialogue. Prior to the initial refill 

meeting several runs of the model were made 

to assess the impacts of:

1) different instream flow targets; and

2) different refill start dates on reservoir refill

reliability.

This output was translated into a histogram to

convey the potential implications of different

potential policies to stakeholders. A wide 

range of instream flow target scenarios for the

spring and summer months from agency

comments at this meeting were tested using the

model. The model was run over the historic

record to examine the potential impact of these
M-13

policies on refill. During the interagency frustrated by the fact that the city of Seattle is

working group meeting that followed, about 15 months behind other study 

stakeholders used the model to fine-tune the participants in reviewing and correcting the

most promising policies, by iteratively testing model of their system.

the impact of their modifications. In this way,

they were able to develop an agreed upon This study was especially useful in

management strategy within a few hours. demonstrating the importance of getting critical

Overall, the model greatly facilitated the of the same players that enthusiastically 

process of establishing a refill strategy. Corps accepted the DPS process on the Green were 

representatives were extremely pleased with the key players on the Cedar. The same modelers

model’s ability to answer questions of concern and managers were used on both basins. But 

to stakeholders during this process. They the city of Seattle’s failure to review a Cedar

reported that use of the object oriented model River model effectively stymied adoption of a

offered several benefits in comparison to collaborative approach on the Cedar.

previous years:

! First, it enabled a greater number of 

scenarios to be investigated, and increased the

amount of fine tuning that could be done.

! It provided participants with access to the

entire historical streamflow database.

! It enhanced stakeholder insight to system

sensitivities, and the relationship between

proposed policies and their likely impacts.

! Finally, it enabled them to come to a

consensus on an appropriate strategy in a

straightforward manner. Because of these

benefits the use of DPS Green River basin 

model to facilitate refill strategy development 

is likely to continue.

In August 1993, about twenty regional water

managers representing the city of Tacoma, the

Muckleshoot tribe, the state of Washington

(Departments of Fisheries and Ecology) and 

the Corps’ Seattle District used a computer

model of the Green River water management

system to simulate a drought so realistically 

that it was termed a Virtual Drought. These

parties are now formalizing an agreement to

extend the collaborative efforts of the DPS into 

a permanent regional water management group. 

Efforts to do the same on the Cedar are 

players to accept a collaborative process. Most 

Circles A and B in the Cedar and Green DPS

were drawn from the Corps’ Seattle District, 

the University of Washington, the city of

Tacoma, the Muckleshoot Tribe, and the

Washington Departments of Ecology and

Fisheries. Circle C included the other cities in

the region, including Seattle, county

governments, and the Puget Sound Regional

Council of Governments.

Other Case Studies

Boston Metropolitan Studies The New

England Division of the Corps of Engineers

worked with the Massachusetts Water 

Resources Authority (MWRA) and the Water

Supply Citizens Advisory Committee 

(WSCAC) on three projects:

! the development of trigger planning using a

simulation model of the MWRA system built

using STELLA II.

! use of a beta version of IWR-MAIN 6.0 to

determine the cost effectiveness of current and

future demand management measures.

! a history of the MWRA, WSCAC, and other

Massachusetts agencies. The purpose of the 
Quabbin Tunnel

Wooster

Boston Metropolitan Area

Atlantic O.

Quaboaq Pond

Quabbin Reservoir

Wachusset Reservoir

Sudbury Reservoir

Weston Aq.

Wachusset Aq.

City

M-14

FIGURE M-6. THE MWRA SERVICE AREA

history is to develop a basis for recommending period may be extremely limited. A second

management solutions that have worked here criticism of existing strategic planning is that it 

for other areas in the U.S. is often divorced from tactical planning efforts. 

Trigger Planning. For many years, MWRA and drought management plans may not be

WSCAC have been concerned that the existing considered when evaluating strategic

strategic planning framework does not provide alternatives.

sufficient flexibility to adequately assess a 

wide range of alternative solutions. Two Trigger Planning provides for continuous

primary shortcomings of the existing planning monitoring of indicators of future water supply

approach have been cited. First, once adopted, conditions under existing management policy. 

MWRA’s strategic plans are typically not Trigger planning identifies a mechanism for

reviewed until the end of a specified planning determining when a change in this strategy is

period, often 15 to 20 years. This episodic needed. It also accounts for the impacts of

approach does not allow the system to respond existing tactical response plans in evaluating

to changes in demand, regulatory requirements, system performance from a strategic 

and social concerns that occur during the perspective. It should provide greater lead 

planning period. Because corrective actions time to adequately scope and evaluate a wide

are postponed, the options to address the range of potential alternatives, both strategic 

problems that exist at the end of the planning and tactical.

For example, the effectiveness of adopted
M-15

In the Trigger Planning Process, monitoring will also be readjusted to reflect this updated

moves through three stages defined by pre- information. These estimates, in turn, may

defined leading indicators, critical points and impact the decision to proceed with the

triggers. Each year, a series of leading implementation of an alternative. In this way,

indicators are monitored including the implementation will be postponed as late into 

conditions of local sources, events and the time horizon as possible.

proposed projects, laws, regulations and

agreements, watershed conditions and

operational procedures, climate precipitation 

and streamflow, public views, and building

permits. Although portions of this information

are available in existing databases, this

information must be better coordinated to

effectively implement trigger planning. Next,

these leading indicators are used to forecast

scenarios describing future system supply and

demand conditions.

Forecasts are used to estimate when the system 

is likely to reach a “critical” state of

unacceptable performance. Currently, this

critical state is defined as the condition when

demand reaches a specified percentage of the

system’s safe yield. Eventually, multiple 

critical points may be defined to reflect 

MWRA’s preferences to pursue demand

management and non-structural options. The

critical state for these options would occur

sooner than that for non-structural options. 

Trigger points are then estimated by

backtracking from the critical points by the

estimated lead time required to implement each

of the alternatives under consideration. These

trigger points indicate when activities to

investigate, design and implement each

alternative must be initiated in order to prevent

the system from reaching the critical state.

If these analyses indicate that a trigger is

impending, evaluation of a wide range of

alternatives would be initiated. Promising

alternatives may progress through the design,

environmental impact assessment, and

implementation phases. During this assessment

and evaluation process, however, leading

indicators will be continuously monitored. 

Estimates of critical points and trigger points 

Required Tools. Several computerized tools

will be needed to implement the trigger 

planning process. Databases tracking trends in

leading indicators will be established. 

Forecasting models will be needed for reliable

estimates of demand. Other simulation models

will be used to estimate system safe yield and

other performance measures and to evaluate the

effectiveness of alternatives at forecasted

demand levels. Simulation may also be used to

estimate critical points and trigger points in the

time horizon.

MWRA has developed a simulation model of 

the system before the National Drought Study

collaboration. This model was originally

developed to estimate the water supply system

safe yield. (Thus it has commonly become

known as the Safe Yield Model). It is written 

in FORTRAN, and much of its logic is

hard-coded in batch data files rather than

specified as heuristics. The primary strength of

this model is that it is trusted by stakeholders. 

This is because considerable effort was spent 

in establishing consensus among stakeholders 

on the model’s validity.

However, the Safe Yield Model has limited

potential as a trigger planning tool for a variety

of reasons. Current users report that it is very

difficult to modify. Thus, it would be difficult 

to incorporate changes in system configuration

and operation that may occur over time. 

Furthermore, it would also be difficult to

formulate and test alternatives with this tool. 

Finally, Safe Yield Model output is reported in

terms of a single performance measure: the

number of shortfalls that occur during the

simulation period. This greatly limits the

perspective from which alternatives can be
M-16

evaluated. Because of the perceived the requirements of trigger planning were

shortcomings of the Safe Yield model, the clarified.

study group decided to use STELLA II® to

create a customized trigger planning tool. Study participants reported that the selection of

The primary focus at the early stages of model was one of the most difficult and time 

development was to replicate the existing consuming aspects of model development. 

system configuration and logic expressed in the They devoted a great deal of effort in trying to

Safe Yield Model. This required translation of reach agreement on which measures were most

the hard-coded data files into heuristics appropriate, how they should be defined and

defining functional relationships among icons what new information they would provide. 

in the object oriented environment. Most of The modeling environment was extremely 

the information required to develop the object useful in facilitating these discussions. It

oriented model was found in the Safe Yield enabled different measures to be quickly

Model. A working model was completed formulated, tested, and discarded if

within four months after the introductory inappropriate.

workshop. Model validation was a two week

process which was critical for establishing trust The current model can perform simulations of

in the model. During this time, output data system response under the current system

from the Safe Yield Model was added to the configuration using 30 years of monthly

STELLA II® model for direct comparison of streamflow data, containing the 1960's drought 

results. Refinements of functional relationships of record. The existing model would 

were made until the STELLA II® model potentially be suitable for evaluating both 

obtained an acceptable level of agreement with supply and demand management alternatives in 

the safe yield model output. a strategic planning context. However, specific

Once model validation was achieved, the the model.

working group began to explore means of

enhancing the model’s usefulness as a trigger Finally, although study participants are

planning tool. The visual clarity of the model enthusiastic about STELLA II, they recognize

was refined, through the use of intermediate some limitations. STELLA II’s lack of ability 

variables and ghosts. The drought response to iterate may complicate the analysis of some

plan, previously developed by MWRA, was problems, such as hydropower sequencing. 

incorporated into the model. Measures of They also found the graphical capabilities of 

system performance were also added to the the environment to be quite limited.

model.

These enhancements were made over a period have been incorporated into the model (see 

of several months, in response to suggestions Table L-IV). These measures were chosen as

made at working group meetings. During this indicators of environmental quality, consumer

time, model development was not the primary impacts, and the quantity of water available. 

focus of the monthly group meetings. Rather, The performance measures were easily

issues related to specific components of the represented within the STELLA II® model. In

trigger planning process, such as demand contrast, it was much more difficult to establish

forecasting and the definition of critical points consensus on which measures were most

were emphasized in group discussion. Thus, valuable.

changes to the model were made gradually, as

appropriate measures of system performance 

alternatives have not yet been incorporated into

Currently, five system performance measures
M-17

Category Performance Criterion Description

Water Quantity Shortfall Number of times where supply is less than the

unconstrained demand. Alternatively, the

volume of such a water deficit.

Environmental

Quality*

Severity The maximum number of consecutive months

Quabbin reservoir is below the target pool.

Maximum Pool Descent The elevation of the maximum deviation of

Quabbin reservoir elevation from target pool.

Resiliency A ratio expressed as a percentage of durations:

the tolerable stay below target pool/particular

stay below target pool.

Consumer Impacts Drought Actions The number of months at each drought

restriction level.

* - as Quabbin is drawn down, there is an impact on riparian areas and water quality within Quabbin 

for fish habitat. Deep draw downs reduce municipal water quality.

TABLE M-IV. PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR STRATEGIC TRIGGER PLANNING IN THE BOSTON AREA

During the course of the study, the model has when these measures indicate an unacceptable

been used to examine the impact of drought level of system performance. Such discussions

management on system performance and to will likely lead to the refinement of the

predict system performance for the year 2012 definitions used for critical points, and will

under four different demand scenarios. provide guidance for future assessment of

The model has also influenced the formulation framework.

of performance measures in the trigger 

planning framework. Had the model not been

available it is unlikely that the same measures

would have been chosen. Furthermore it is

unlikely that the implications of these measures

would be as well understood. Study 

participants reported that their model-aided

investigation of performance measures greatly

enhanced their understanding of the trade-offs

involved in system operation. 

It is likely that the model will continue to be 

used in the definition of the trigger planning

framework. For example, it may help 

participants reach consensus on the points 

alternatives within the trigger planning

Activities Anticipated Beyond the Study. 

Although Corps involvement in the trigger

planning effort ceased upon completion of the

National Drought Study, much work remains. 

Both MWRA and WSCAC are confident that

both the trigger planning paradigm and model

content will continue to be refined, largely

because of the success of the efforts so far. 

Likely activities include further enhancements 

to equation documentation and model clarity.

Demonstrations of the trigger planning concept

and the object oriented model to a larger

audience within MWRA, WSCAC and the

Corps, and other interested agencies will occur. 
M-18

IWR-MAIN will be brought on line to improve vision model and Atlas statistics to demonstrate

the quality of the demand forecasts required of that.

the trigger planning process.

Trigger planning will begin to be integrated 

into future planning documents and is 

anticipated to become the accepted agency

planning approach. The existing model will be

used annually to perform the trigger planning

analyses. As trigger points are approached, the

model will be adapted to analyze a wide range 

of potential alternatives. WSCAC has also

expressed an interest in using this model to

reevaluate the adequacy of the triggering 

mechanisms in MWRA’s existing drought

response plan.

Susquehanna River Basin Studies. This a larger effort called the Study of Severe

work was a series of small efforts done in Sustained Drought in the Southwestern United

parallel with an ongoing Section 22 study of States (the SSD Study), which was conducted 

water supply in Harrisburg area. The by a consortium of western U.S. universities. 

collective work had five components: an The purpose of the SSD research program was 

examination of the condition of small water to identify feasible changes in operating rules 

supply systems; an investigation of differences for allocating and managing Colorado River

between public and investor owned utilities’ water. The SSD Study was supported by funds

drought contingency plans; a brief review of from the USGS, the Metropolitan Water 

vulnerability to drought; a look at the District of Southern California, the Upper

possibilities for conjunctive management of Colorado River Commission, the National

surface and groundwater, and the development Drought Study and the participating 

of a preliminary shared vision model of the universities. The SSD Study grew out of the

Susquehanna River in collaboration with the U.S. State Department’s “Man and Biosphere

Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC). Program”. 

The studies found that regionalization of water

supplied would help efforts to meet water The Colorado Gaming Study was a 

quality and drought preparedness needs. There collaborative effort between the SSD and the

were few differences between the drought National Drought Study teams. Bill Lord

preparedness plans of public and private water (University of Arizona) was the principal

utilities; all were formulaic. SRBC has since architect and proponent for the game. Like the

purchased computer equipment and software to Drought Study, the Gaming Study was 

continue the development of the shared vision designed to connect research and practice, and

model. The Baltimore District is aiding this both kinds of water experts participated. State

effort as part of the Planning Assistance to water officials from the Colorado basin served 

States (Section 22). The objective in this work as study advisors, while students and professors

is unusual; the SRBC feels that current played the roles of officials and applied the

drought management techniques may be too research and findings from the SSD Study to 

frequently imposed, and intend to use a shared the game. 

Colorado River Gaming. Gaming is the

technique of placing subjects in an 

environment which requires them to make joint

or collective decisions among hypothetical

options. The subjects are shown the 

prospective consequences of their decisions as

the game proceeds. Playing the game can

improve one’s understanding of how a water

system responds to different water management

decisions, and may reveal changes in operating

rules which improve the performance of the

system.

The Colorado River Gaming study was part of 
M-19

The objectives of this gaming exercise were to accordance with existing rules. Any changes 

screen alternative operating rule sets before a in the rules required unanimous agreement by

more detailed evaluation, and to compare DOI and the seven states. This alternative is

alternative collective choice rule sets. (See page marked by limited information about

8 in the main report for definitions of the three consequences, especially to other states. The

levels of rules). An analysis using game players used e-mail to conduct this game so as 

theory helped define the three collective choice to prevent face to face bilateral negotiations.

rule sets which distinguished the 3 games.

(Gaming is distinct from, but can be used in

conjunction with the mathematical theory of

games. John von Neumann and Oskar

Morganstern developed game theory as a 

method for analyzing competitive situations in

economics, warfare, and other areas of

conflicting interest (Glicksman).)

The gaming exercise was first done as a 

graduate seminar in the Spring term of 1992 at

the University of Arizona. Seven graduate

students assumed the roles of state water

officials from the seven states of the Colorado

River Basin, and chose how they would 

respond to a severe drought as it unfolded

through the simulation of AZCOL. AZCOL 

was a model of the hydrology, water

management facilities, water allocation

institutions, and water demands of the basin.

AZCOL was developed using STELLA II®. 

The choices the students could make were

limited; some were intrastate, others were

interstate and required two or more students to

come to an agreement to act. The game was

played nine times, each time with unique set of

rules.

A second game was played in June 1993 with

university professors from each state playing 

the role of water directors, and study advisor

playing the role of the Secretary of the Interior. 

The game was based on a very severe 38 year

drought (on the order of a 500 year event), and

was played three times under three collective

choice alternatives:

! The Status Quo Game, in which operating

decisions for water management facilities were

made by the Department of the Interior in

! Colorado River Basin Commission Game.

A river basin commission would provide many

of the advantages of an interstate compact, but

could be established more easily, so this option

was simulated in the second game. The rules 

for the Commission Game were identical to the

Status Quo game except that the “Commission”

shared more information and analyses with the

states, and the players assembled in one 

location for this game. This meant they could

take part in group discussions (no bi-lateral

discussions were allowed) on decision making

and alternative decision rules. Given this

framework, players developed an alternative to

the “equalization rule”, the status quo method 

of balancing hydropower production from Glen

Canyon Dam and water deliveries to the Lower

Colorado Basin.

! Water Banking and Marketing Game. 

This differed from the Commission Game in 

that any two states could exchange unlimited

amounts of information, and could make 

bilateral agreements (including interstate sale 

of water) so long as the other 5 states were not

harmed. The judgement of no harm was made 

by the “Secretary of the Interior”.

In each game, participants had freedom to 

make changes in operating rules within the

applicable collective choice rule set. Players

identified the important measures of 

performance (primarily, amounts of water

delivered) and decision criteria. Before the

games were played, decision criteria were

evaluated for relative importance using the

Bureau of Reclamation’s MATS software. In

general, the pre-game subjects rated economic

impacts twice as important as equity, and
M-20

endangered species preservation more ! Consumptive water uses are well protected

important than maintenance of wetlands and from drought, but non-consumptive uses are 

riparian areas. These inferences were important not. Drought risk is the highest in the upper

for the game, but have little significance out of basin.

that context, since these values were elicited

from professors playing the role of state water ! Only minor changes can be made under

directors. existing rules, and only minor improvements 

This study showed that: choice rule sets, so long as changes in federal

! In this simulation, water managers were most

interested in satisfying diversions for ! Intrastate drought management is more

consumptive use and avoiding impacts that effective in limiting drought losses than are

would trigger action under the Endangered easily adopted changes in interstate water

Species Act. Hydropower production, allocation.

recreation, salinity, and most non-ESA

environmental impacts were less important. The games suggest the value of a compact

! There is sharp competition among water uses River Basin Commission, that would examine a

on the Colorado, and the Status Quo does not re-balancing of consumptive and nonprovide clear decision criteria for allocation. consumptive uses facilitated by water banking

The water use priorities of the “Law of the and marketing.

River” are further complicated by independent

rules implicit in the Endangered Species Act, Finally, the gaming exercise demonstrated a

the Clean Water Act, and federal reserved complete method for testing and reporting on

rights. And, in these three games, the economic institutional changes.

value of hydropower was not matched by an

equivalent priority for waters. (See page L-6 

for a real world verification of this discrepancy

between economic impact and water 

management priority).

can be made with the other two collective 

legislation or court decisions are ruled out.

commission, perhaps similar to the Delaware
N-1

N - The National Drought Atlas

The National Drought Atlas is a compendium precipitation map since 1962, and is based on 

of statistical information. It was designed to the HCN.)

help regional analysts answer certain questions

more quickly and with more confidence than ! A United States map showing the

ever before. The Atlas can be used for to help precipitation clusters

determine how long and intense droughts are

likely to be, both for the sake of long term ! A United States map showing the

planning and operational decisions during a precipitation stations

drought.

The development of the Atlas was a streamflow stations

collaborative effort among the Corps of

Engineers, Miami University (Ohio), the ! Explanations of the methods and data, and a

National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and summary of implications for water policy and

International Business Machines (IBM). The management.

Atlas team was headed by Dr. Gene Willeke,

Institute of Environmental Sciences, Miami A short description of the Atlas’ information 

University, Oxford, Ohio. The principal on precipitation, streamflow and Palmer Index

researchers were Nathaniel Guttman, National follows, with examples. 

Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C., 

Jonathan Hosking and James Wallis, both of 

the I.B.M. Thomas J. Watson Research Center, 

in Yorktown Heights, N.Y.

The Atlas is based on recently refined national

precipitation and streamflow data sets. 

Precipitation and streamflow statistics were

generated using a method (referred to as lmoment analysis) developed at IBM by J.R.

Hosking and J.R. Wallis. The method permits

greater confidence in estimating drought

frequencies from the relatively small number of

droughts for which there are precipitation and

streamflow records.

The Atlas includes statistics in three categories: 

precipitation, streamflow and Palmer Index. To

aid the user in applying these statistics, the 

Atlas includes:

! A map of the U.S. showing average annual

precipitation. (The map is the first national

! A United States map showing the 

! Precipitation. The Atlas has tables and

graphs showing the percentage of normal

precipitation that can be expected for a variety 

of durations and starting months at various

frequencies for 111 “clusters” covering the

contiguous 48 states. The frequencies are 0.02,

0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.5, 0.80, 0.90, 0.95, 0.98. 

The expected frequencies of hydrologic events

are also expressed in terms of return or

recurrence intervals, such as “a 50 year event”. 

The implication of the phrase is not that the

event will return, comet-like, on a 50 year

schedule, but that over a very long period of

time, there would be an average of two events 

at least that large per century. The Atlas

frequencies span a range from 0.02, a “50 year

dry period”, to 0.98, a “50 year wet period.” 

The probability of greater than normal

precipitation can help estimate the likelihood 

that soil moisture or reservoir levels will 

recover within a given amount of time. The

durations are 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60

months. For durations of 1, 2, 3 and 6 months,
N-2

the percentage of normal precipitation is 0.84 to 0.88. (That is, 83-86% of the median 5

provided for each starting month from January year precipitation fell during the 30's drought 

through December. Researchers found that for at those stations.) The analyst would then

longer durations, quantiles (the ratio of the compare these ratios to the quantiles for 

extreme to the median event of the measured various recurrence intervals shown in the Atlas. 

statistic, such as volume of precipitation) were In the process outlined below, the analyst 

about the same no matter the starting month. would find that the Atlas 50 year quantile for 

These statistics represent the estimated droughts are 0.86 and 0.89, respectively. That

population based on a regional frequency would mean that precipitation amounts as small

analysis of the 1,119 stations in the Historical or smaller than the 30's drought should be

Climatology Network (HCN). The HCN is expected every 10 to 50 years, depending on 

composed of verified data for precipitation the station. The implication for a planner in 

stations with long historic records, and was this hypothetical situation is that a more severe

developed by the National Oceanographic and 60 month drought is probable within any fifty

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for use year period.

in climate change studies. 

Example. This illustration is meant to show 

the practical use of the Atlas data, not to

demonstrate their mathematical soundness. 

Statistical explanations for the development

methods are discussed in the Atlas and in the

peer reviewed papers that preceded its

publication. 

Drought planners often use the worst drought 

on record to test the merits of their plans. But

how likely is it that there will be a more 

intense or a longer drought than the drought of

record? The Atlas would allow an analyst to

estimate the probability that there will be less

precipitation during future droughts than during

the drought of record.

To do that, the analyst would first characterize

the drought of record in terms comparable to 

the durations and starting months in the Atlas. 

For example, if the worst drought on record

occurred from 1932 to 1936, the analyst would

collect precipitation records for all sites of

interest, and then calculate the median 5 year

precipitation (in inches), the 1932-36

precipitation totals, and the ratio of the 1932- 

36 to the median for those stations. Assume 

for this illustration that the ratio of the two

varied at different precipitation stations from

60 month duration is 0.83; the 20 and 10 year

To develop the Atlas quantiles, the analyst

would first look at the Atlas’ U.S. map that

shows the 111 precipitation clusters, and select

the clusters that spanned the study area in

question. For this illustration, assume that 

those clusters are 35, 105, and 106. Cluster 35

covers the western panhandle of Florida,

Southwestern Alabama, Coastal Mississippi, 

and Southeastern Louisiana. It is made up of 

17 precipitation stations. 

Table N-I lists the defining characteristics of 

the 17 stations in Cluster 35. The Atlas 

includes these characteristics for all clusters. 

Each precipitation station in a cluster has the

same population distribution about the median. 

For example, the ratio of the 50 year to the

median precipitation for any station in Cluster 

35 is the same for each duration. The 

quantiles for Cluster 35 are shown in 

Table N-II. For example, the amount of 

precipitation that can be expected in a 60 

month drought with a 50 year recurrence 

interval is 83% of the median precipitation for

the year. This would apply to all stations in

Cluster 35. An analyst would usually want to

estimate probable precipitation amounts at

stations not included in the Atlas. The Atlas 
N-3

Station

Number

Station Name State Latitude Longitude Elevation

11084 Brewton 3SSE AL 31.07 87.05 85

128132 Fairhope AL 30.55 87.88 23

80211 Apalachicola WSO AP FL 29.73 85.03 20

82220 DeFuniak Springs FL 30.73 86.12 230

86997 Pensacola FAA AP FL 30.47 87.20 112

160205 Amite LA 30.70 90.53 170

160549 Baton Rouge LA 30.53 91.13 64

162151 Covington 4 NNW LA 30.53 90.12 40

162534 Donaldsonville LA 30.07 91.03 30

163313 Franklin 3 NW LA 29.92 91.55 12

164407 Houma LA 29.58 90.73 15

164700 Jennings LA 30.20 92.67 25

165026 Lafayette LA 30.20 91.98 38

166664 New Orleans Audubon LA 29.92 90.13 6

169013 Thibodaux LA 29.77 90.78 15

220792 Pascagoula MS 30.40 88.95 12

227128 Poplarville EXP STN MS 30.85 89.55 313

TABLE N-I. STATION DESCRIPTIONS IN CLUSTER 35

50120 10 5 7 Dry Wet 6 5 10 20 50

0.0220.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.80 0.90 0.95 0.98 Mean

1230.6540.71 0.77 0.85 1 1.19 1.28 1.37 1.47 1.01 

24 0.75 0.80 0.84 0.89 1 1.12 1.19 1.24 1.30 1.01 

36 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 1 1.09 1.14 1.18 1.23 1.00 

60 0.83 0.86 0.89 0.92 1 1.07 1.12 1.12 1.19 1.00 

1 - recurrence interval, in years (up to 50 year dry or wet events)

2 - the non exceedance frequency; the percentage of time it will not precipitate more than this

3 - duration, in months (from 12 to 60)

4 - the values in the table are quantiles, the ratio of the precipitation in the extreme event to the

median event. In the case of the quantile footnoted, the table implies that in only 2% of all 

years will less than 65% of the median precipitation fall in stations associated with Cluster 35.

TABLE N-II. QUANTILES FOR CLUSTER 35, NATIONAL DROUGHT ATLAS.
N-4

Cluster 105

50120 10 5 7 Dry Wet 6 5 10 20 50

0.0220.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.80 0.90 0.95 0.98 Mean

1230.7040.75 0.80 0.87 1 1.18 1.27 1.35 1.45 1.01 

24 0.78 0.82 0.87 0.92 1 1.14 1.21 1.27 1.32 1.01 

36 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.92 1 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.01 

60 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92 1 1.07 1.12 1.12 1.21 0.99 

Cluster 106

50120 10 5 7 Dry Wet 6 5 10 20 50

0.0220.05 0.10 0.20 0.50 0.80 0.90 0.95 0.98 Mean

1230.70 0.75 0.80 0.87 1 1.18 1.27 1.35 1.45 1.01 

24 0.77 0.8140.85 0.90 1 1.12 1.19 1.24 1.31 1.01 

36 0.80 0.83 0.86 0.91 1 1.10 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.00 

60 0.84 0.87 0.90 0.93 1 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.17 1.00 

1 - recurrence interval, in years (up to 50 year dry or wet events)

2 - the non exceedance frequency; the percentage of time it will not precipitate more than this

3 - duration, in months (from 12 to 60)

4 - the values in the table are quantiles, the ratio of the precipitation in the extreme event to the

median event. In the case of the quantile footnoted, the table implies that in only 5% of all

two year periods will less than 81% of the median precipitation fall in stations associated with

Cluster 106.

TABLE N-III. QUANTILES FOR CLUSTERS 105 AND 106

quantiles would also apply to most of those with the “wrong” cluster, the estimated

stations. The analyst would make a precipitation would still be about the same. 

professional judgement about which This is evident when the quantiles for the 3

precipitation stations not included in the Atlas clusters in this example are compared for 12

should be associated with Cluster 35, 105, or month long events (Figure N-1) and 60 month

106. In most areas of the country, there will events (Figure N-2). The 60 month duration

be little difference in the quantiles of adjoining quantiles for the 20 and 50 year recurrence

clusters for similar events of the same duration intervals are 0.01 higher for Clusters 105 and

and rarity. The practical implication is that if 106 than for Cluster 35, equivalent to about 

the analyst were to associate a non-Atlas station two inches of precipitation in five years.
N-5

FIGURE N-1. PRECIPITATION QUANTILES FOR 3 CLUSTERS IN THE SOUTHEAST

FIGURE N-2. QUANTILES FOR 60 MONTH DROUGHTS IN 3 CLUSTERS
N-6

Precipitation Station

No.

Mean Precipitation for a period of:

12 months 24 months 36 months 60 months

11084 62.23 124.42 186.64 311.27 

128132 64.79 129.59 194.33 323.97 

80211 56.25 112.44 168.67 280.76 

82220 66.73 133.13 200.02 333.28 

86997 60.42 120.84 180.53 302.11 

160205 63.65 127.30 190.84 317.33 

160549 57.72 115.45 173.18 286.18 

162151 61.99 124.28 185.01 303.14 

162534 59.29 118.81 177.50 296.36 

163313 64.11 128.61 191.79 320.92 

164407 62.22 124.05 187.45 311.37 

164700 58.77 117.49 176.18 293.58 

165026 57.61 114.95 172.58 287.91 

166664 61.29 122.34 183.53 305.11 

169013 63.14 126.29 190.51 315.92 

220792 59.73 118.68 177.52 295.95 

227128 62.5 124.10 186.73 308.96 

TABLE N-IV. MEAN PRECIPITATION FOR STATIONS IN CLUSTER 35.

Expected amounts of precipitation for each The frequencies are the same as for 

frequency, duration, and starting month can precipitation: 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.5, 0.80,

also be calculated. Table N-IV lists the mean 0.90, 0.95, and 0.98. These statistics represent 

precipitation for 12, 24, 36, and 60 months for the estimated population based on an at-site

the stations in cluster 35. This information is frequency analysis for a subset of the 

also included in the Atlas. Multiplying the Historical Climatological Data Network

mean by the product of the 50 year quantile (HCDN), developed by the U.S. Geological

and the ratio of the median to the mean (which Survey. Table N-VI and Table N-VII show a

is often 1.00) produces the expected depth of sampling of streamflow stations and data in the

precipitation for a 60 month duration, 50 year same geographic region used for the 

recurrence interval drought. These depths are precipitation example. The analysis would be

shown in Table N-V. performed in essentially the same way as the

! Streamflow. The Atlas includes tables and

graphs showing the percentage of normal

streamflow that can be expected at various

frequencies for durations of up to 12 months at

individual gaging stations in the 48 contiguous

states.

precipitation example. The resultant flows

would be equivalent to unregulated flows, and

would have to be adjusted to reflect 

recent changes in the water management 

regime.
N-7

Station Number 12 month 24 month 36 month 60 month

11084 40.4 93.3 147.4 258.4

128132 42.1 97.2 153.5 268.9 

80211 36.6 84.3 133.2 233.0

82220 43.4 99.8 158.0 276.6

86997 39.3 90.6 142.6 250.8

160205 41.4 95.5 150.8 263.4

160549 37.5 86.6 136.8 237.5

162151 40.3 93.2 146.2 251.6

162534 38.5 89.1 140.2 246.0

163313 41.7 96.5 151.5 266.4

164407 40.4 93.0 148.1 258.4

164700 38.2 88.1 139.2 243.7

165026 37.4 86.2 136.3 239.0

166664 39.8 91.8 145.0 253.2

169013 41.0 94.7 150.5 262.2

220792 38.8 89.0 140.2 245.6

227128 40.6 93.1 147.5 256.4

TABLE N-V. EXPECTED PRECIPITATION IN A 50 YEAR DROUGHT, CLUSTER 35.

50 year (dry) 50 year (wet)

1 month

(March)

12 month 1 month

(November)

12 month

Number Description

2411800 Little River Near

Buchanan, GA

0.1310.50 2.52 1.41 

2414500 Tallapoosa River at

Wadley AL

0.18 0.52 2.90 1.72 

2331000 Chatahoochee River

near Leaf, GA

0.39 0.58 2.65 1.59 

2331600 Chatahoochee River

near Cornelia, GA

0.28 0.32 2.40 1.42 

1 - implies that in only 2% of all March’s (50 year recurrence interval) will there be less than 13% of the

median precipitation for March.

TABLE N-VI. STATISTICS FOR SELECTED STREAMGAGE STATIONS
N-8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean

2.9 1.4 4.3 4.315.8 4.3 7.2 8.7 7.2 8.7 7.2 4.4 5.5

1 - implies that the Palmer Drought Severity Index was -3 or lower in 4.3% of all April-May periods

on record for this Cluster in Alabama. Unlike streamflow and precipitation, the PDSI percentages in

the Atlas are sample, rather than population statistics.

TABLE N-VIII. THE PERCENTAGE OF THE HISTORIC RECORD THAT THE PDSI WAS -3 OR DRIER FOR 

CLUSTER 35 STATIONS IN ALABAMA.

Station

Number

Drainage

Area (Sq.mi.)

Elevation Annual

Precipitation

Latitude Longitude

2411800 20.2 1230 51 33.8 85.12 

2414500 1675 930 52 33.12 85.56 

2331000 150 1950 62 34.58 83.64 

2331600 315 1871 62 34.54 83.62 

TABLE N-VII. SOME SOUTHEASTERN STREAMGAGE STATIONS LISTED IN THE ATLAS

! Palmer Index. The Atlas includes tables

showing the percentage of time in the historic

record that the Palmer Drought Severity Index

(PDSI) fell below -3, -4, and -5. The PDSI 

was calculated at 1,135 precipitation stations,

including all of the HCN stations. These are 

at-site sample statistics; no population

distributions were estimated. As an example of

the PDSI information in the Atlas, 

Table N-VIII shows the percentage of time the

PDSI was below -3 in Cluster 35 for at least 

two months.

Interagency cooperation on design of the 

Atlas. A number of scientists and engineers

helped guide the initial design of the Atlas,

including Robert Brumbaugh, IWR; Ernie

Carlson, IWR; Dick DiBuono, Corps of

Engineers; Michael Fosberg and William

Sommers, Forest Fire & Atmospheric Sciences

Research, US Forest Service; Ken Kunkel,

Director, Midwest Climate Center, Champaign,

IL; Lou Moore, Bureau of Reclamation; 

Arlene Nurthen, Director of Publications, IWR; 

Tom Ross, USGS; Norton Strommen, Chief,

Climatology; Wilbert Thomas, USGS; John

Vogel, National Weather Service; Ann Carey,

Chief Science Advisor, Soil Conservation 

Service, and Gene Stallings, Office of 

Hydrology, National Weather Service. An 

early version of the Atlas was presented to a 

group of water managers who recommended 

that the frequencies of extreme wet as well as 

dry periods be estimated so that they would 

have additional information to help respond to

questions about recovery from a drought. 

Those managers include Richard Punnett

(Huntington district Corps of Engineers), Brian

Spindor (Seattle Water Department) Chris 

Lynch (Seattle district Corps of Engineers), and

Stu Schwartz (Interstate Conference on the

Potomac River Basin).
Bib-1

Bibliography

Abrams, Robert H., Water Allocation by Comprehensive Permit Systems in the Eastern United States:

Considering a Move Away from Orthodoxy: 9 Va. Environmental L. J. 255 (1990).

American Water Works Association, 1992; Drought Management Planning; 6666 West Quincy Ave.;

Denver, CO 80235

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Citizen Participation in the American Federal

System. Washington, D. C.: ACIR, 1979.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Coordinating Water Resources in the Federal

System: The Groundwater-Surface Water Connection. Washington, D. C.: ACIR, 1991.

Arnette; Joseph L., Methodologies for Determining Instream Flows for Fish and Other Aquatic Life: 

Overview and Outlook; a paper in “Instream Flow Needs, Volume I”; American Fisheries Society; 

5410 Grosvenor Lane; Bethesda, MD 20014.

Axelrod, Robert; 1984; The Evolution of Cooperation; New York: Basic Books.

Beck, Robert E., ed., Waters and Water Rights. Charlottesville Virginia: The Michie Co., 1991

Edition.

Bedient, Philip B., and Wayne C. Huber, Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis, Second Edition,

Addison-Wesley, 1992.

Blahna, Dale J. and Susan Yonts-Shepard. 1989. Public Involvement in Resource Planning: Toward

Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Implementation. Society and Natural Resources 2(3):209-227.

Blomquist, William. Exploring State Differences in Groundwater Laws and Policy Innovations: 

Publius - The Journal of Federalism (Spring 1991): 101-115.

California Department of Water Resources, November 1987; California Water: Looking to the Future.

Bulletin 160-87. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources, January 1991a; California’s Continuing Drought.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources, December 1991b; California’s Continuing Drought,

1987-1991: A Summary of Impacts and Conditions as of December 1, 1991. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources, January 1992a; The 1991 Drought Water Bank. 

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Water Resources, 1992b; Contract for Water Service from a 1992 California

Drought Emergency Water Bank.
Bib-2

California Department of Water Resources, 1992d; Economic Impact of Drought on California

Agriculture in 1991; Division of Planning, Internal note. Sacramento, CA. July 1992.

California Department of Water Resources, November 1993; The California Water Plan Update, Draft

Bulletin 160-93. Sacramento, CA.

Cannon, Lou, Drought “Battle Plan” Announced: Washington Post, Feb. 16, 1991.

Cassidy, William, Chief of Engineers; A letter to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public

Works, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, February 4, 1969: and the response from

House Appropriations Chairman Michael J. Kirwan, March 29, 1969.

Cowdin, S. and J. Rich, 1994; Economic Impacts of Drought upon California’s Commercial and

Industrial Sectors in 1991; in preparation as part of Impacts of the California Drought; U.S. Army

Engineers Institute for Water Resources. Working Paper, Fort Belvoir, VA.

Creighton, James L., Jerry Delli Priscoli, and C. Mark Dunning, 1983. Public Involvement

Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. IWR Research

Report 82-R1. Fort Belvoir, VA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources.

Creighton, James L. and Wetherall, Trudie; Overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): A

Handbook for Corps Managers (Draft, November 1993). 

David, R.; Aquifer Storage Recovery: A New Water Supply Alternative; Water; Laws and

Management. AWRA; Sept.1989. 

Daneke, Gregory A. 1977. Public Involvement in Natural Resource Development: A Review of 

Water Resource Planning. Environmental Affairs 6(1):11-31. 

Day, Gerald N., “Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS”, Journal of the Water Resources

Planning and Management Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 111, No. 2, 1985.

Dellapenna, Joseph W., Owning Surface Water in the Eastern United States : 6 Proceedings of the E.

Mineral Law Foundation, 1-1 (1985).

Delli Priscoli, Jerome; 1986; Group Process Techniques; “Societal and Environmental Objectives in

Water Resources Planning and Management”, Edited by Warren Viessmann, Jr. and Kyle E. Schilling,

American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017-2398.

Delli Priscoli, Jerome; Collaboration, Participation, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); 

Process Concepts for the Bank’s Role in Water Resources; 20 March 1992.

Desario, Jack and Stuart Langton, 1987; Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. New York;

Greenwood Press.

Deutsch, Morton; 1978; The Resolution of Conflict; New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bib-3

Deutsch, Morton; 1985; Distributive Justice; New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dracup, J.A., Lee K.S., and Paulson, E.G. Jr.; 1980; On the Definition of Droughts, Water Resources

Research, 16(2): 297-302.

Driver, Bruce, Western Water Law: Fine Tuning the System : Western Governor’s Association, 1986.

Eastman, Paul W.; Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply, May 1986, Proceedings of an

Engineering Foundation Conference, Santa Barbara, California, Warren Viessman, Jr. and Kyle E.

Schilling, editors.

Eckstein, Otto, and Krutilla, John V.; Multiple Purpose River Development; published for Resources

for the Future, Johns Hopkins Press, 1958. Krutilla worked at RFF, a Ford Foundation establishment

which at the time had William Paley, Charles F. Luce, and Gilbert White (among others) on its Board

of Directors. Eckstein was a Professor of Economics at Harvard University.

Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources

Implementation Studies Paragraph 6, March 10, 1983.

Emerson, Richard M; 1981; Social Exchange Theory; Pp. 30-65 in Social Psychology: Sociological

Perspectives, edited by M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner. New York: Basic Books.

Essenwanger, O.M., “Elements of Statistical Analysis”, General Climatology, Volume 1B, in the

World Survey of Climatology, Elsevier, 1986.

Getches, David H. Controlling Groundwater Use and Quality: A Fragmented System, 17 Nat.

Resources Law 623 (1984).

Getches, David H. Water Law in a Nutshell, 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1990.

Getches, David H. “Water Reform: Ideas Whose Time Has Come”, Water Resources Update, Winter

1990, Issue Number 90, The Universities Council on Water Resources, D. Baumann and W. Werick, 

eds.

Glicksman, A.M. An Introduction to Linear Programming and the Theory of Games; John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. 1963.

Gottlieb, Robert. A Life of Its Own: The Politics and Power of Water. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace,

Jovanovich, 1988.

Gray, Barbara; 1989; Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems; London:

Jossey-Bass.

Grigg, Neil and Vlachos, Evan; Drought Water Management, Proceedings of a National Workshop,

Washington, D.C.; November 1988; A Report for the Natural and Man-Made Hazards Mitigation 

Program of the National Science Foundation; 232 pp.
Bib-4

Hansen, William; Evaluating Environmental Projects; May, 1993. 20th Annual Water Management

Conference, ASCE Proceedings.

Hardin, Russell; 1982; Collective Action; Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Harris, L. and Hampton, T.; Large Scale Conjunctive Use of the San Gabriel Basin; Water 

Management for the 90's; ASCE 1993; page 609.

Holling, C.S.; The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Climate Change; 

Sustainable Development of the Biosphere; 1986; W.C. Clark and T.E. Munn, eds; Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, Beatrice Hort; History of Federal Water Resources Programs and Policies, 1961-1970; U.S.

Department of Agriculture; Miscellaneous Publication No. 1379; September, 1979.

Howe, Charles W., and F.P. Linaweaver, Jr. 1967; “The Impact of Price and Residential Water 

Demand and Its Relation to System Design and Price Structure”; Water Resources Research 3:12-32.

Hrezo, Margaret, Phyllis Bridgeman, and William Walker, Integrating Drought Planning Into Water

Resources Management; 26 Natural Resources Journal 141 (1986).

Ingram, Helen. 1972. The Changing Decision Rules in the Politics of Water Development. Water

Resources Bulletin 8:1177-1188.

Johnson, Norman K. and Charles T. DuMars, A Survey of the Evolution of Western Water Law in

Response to Changing Economic and Public Interest Demands; 29 Natural Resources Journal 347

(1989).

Johnson, David W. and Roger T. Johnson. 1989. Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research.

Edina, MN: Interaction.

Kressel, Kenneth and Dean G. Pruitt; 1989; Mediation Research; London: Jossey-Bass.

Langton, Stuart; Historical Milestones: Public Involvement in the Corps of Engineers. Fort Belvoir,

VA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources; 1993; mimeo.

Lee, Kai N., Compass and Gyroscope, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.

Linsley, Ray K., Max A. Kohler, and Joseph L.H. Paulhus, Hydrology for Engineers, 3rd ed., 

McGraw-Hill, NY, 1982.

Long’s Peak Working Group; America’s Waters: A New Area of Sustainability; Report of the Long’s

Peak Working Group on National Water Policy; The Natural Resources Law Center; University of

Colorado, Boulder; December, 1992.

Lord, William R., 1979. Conflict in Federal Water Resource Planning. Water Resources Bulletin 

15(5):1226-1235. American Water Resources Association.
Bib-5

Lord, William R., 1981. Objectives and Constraints in Federal Water Resources Planning; Water

Resources Bulletin, December. American Water Resources Association.

Lord, William R, 1984. “Institutions and Technology: Keys to Better Water Management.” Water

Resources Bulletin, 20(5): 653, October. American Water Resources Association.

Luce, R. Duncan and Howard Raiffa; 1957; New York: Wiley.

Maass, Arthur, Maynard M. Hufschmidt, Robert Dorfman, Harold Thomas, Jr., Stephen A. Marglin,

Gordon Maskew Fair; Blair Bower, William W. Reedy, Deward F. Manzer, Michael P. Barnett, Myron

B. Fiering, Peter Watermeyer; Design of Water Systems; Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA

1966.

Major, David; Multiobjective Water Resource Planning; 1977; American Geophysical Union,

Washington, D.C.

Maloney, Frank E., Richard C. Ausness and J. Scott Morris. A Model Water Code with Commentary.

Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1972.

Mather, John R., The Climatic Water Budget in Environmental Analysis, Lexington Books, Lexington,

MA, 1978.

Miller, James W.; Relating Fish Production to Streamflow Levels Using Fish and Water Management

Models; a paper in “Instream Flow Needs, Volume II”; American Fisheries Society; 5410 Grosvenor

Lane; Bethesda, MD 20014.

Moreau, David and Little, Keith; 1989; Managing Public Water Supplies During Droughts,

Experiences in the United States in 1986 and 1988; Water Resources Research Institute Report No.

250; University of North Carolina; 119 pp.

Olsen, D; and J. Richards, “Summary Report: Rogue River Summer Steelhead and Fall Chinook Sport

Fisheries Economic Valuation Study” (Lake Oswego OR: Pacific Northwest Project, 1992).

Olsen, D;, “Nonmarket economic values for salmon and wildlife resources,” in Water Management in

the 90's: A Time for Innovation. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference, Katherine Hon, ed.

(New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993) 51.

Olson, Mansur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Opitz, Eva and Benedykt Dziegielewski, Consumer Response to the Drought Media Campaign in

Southern California; March 1989. A report by Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd. for the

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Ostrom, Elinor, ed. Strategies of Political Inquiry, Beverly Hills, Sage Publications, 1982.

Palmer, Tim. The Snake River: Window to the West. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1991.
Bib-6

Pike, Douglas. 1967. Viet Cong. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects; 1950, rev. 1958; a Report to the

Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources by the Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards.

Rapoport, Anatol. 1974. Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Reisner, Marc. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. New York: Viking

Penguin, Inc., 1986.

Rice, Leonard, and Michael White. Engineering Aspects of Water Law. John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Rogers, Peter, 1993. America’s Water: Federal Roles and Responsibilities. The Twentieth Century

Fund. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.

Rressel, Renneth and Dean G. Pruitt. 1989. Mediation Research. London: Jossey-Bass.

Sax, Joseph L., The Limits of Private Rights in Public Water; 19 Environmental Law Journal 473

(1989).

Sax, Joseph L., Robert H. Abrams, and Barton H. Thompson, Jr. Legal Control of Water Resources,

2d Edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1991.

Sax, Joseph L., The Constitution, Property Rights and the Future of Water Law:,” 61 University of

Colorado Law Review 257 (1990).

Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwarz, Harry E. (Clark University, Worcester, MA, and David C. Major, Social Science Research

Council, New York, NY; letter to the editor, Water International, 18, Journal of the International

Water Resources Association; 1993.

Sherk, George William, Eastern Water Law: Trends in State Legislation; 9 Va. Environmental L. J. 

287 (1990).

Sherk, George William, Meetings of Waters: The Conceptual Confluence of Water Law in the Eastern

and Western States; 5 Natural Resources & Environment 3 (Spring 1991).

Smith, Paula K., Coercion and Groundwater Management: Three Case Studies and a “Market”

Approach; 16 Environmental Law 797 (1986).

Smith, Zachary A., ed. Water and the Future of the Southwest. Albuquerque: University of New

Mexico Press, 1989.

Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce, H. A. Perlman, 1993; Estimated Use of Water in The United States in

1990, pp. 11. U.S.G.S. Circular 1081, Denver, CO.
Bib-7

Stakhiv, Eugene Z.; Achieving Social and Environmental Objectives in Water Resources Planning:

Theory and Practice; Social and Environmental Objectives in Water Resources Planning and

Management; 1986; Proceedings of and Engineering Foundation Conference sponsored by ASCE; 

Edited by Warren Viessman, Jr. and Kyle E. Schilling; p. 107-125.

Tarlock, A. Dan. Law of Water Rights and Resources. New York: Clark Boardman, 1988.

Tilly, Charles. 1981. As Sociology Meets History. New York: Academic Press.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 15 February 1989: Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities;

EP 1165-2-1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, May 1991: The National Study of Water

Management During Drought; Report on the First Year of Study; IWR Report 91-NDS-1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, September 1993; Lessons Learned

From the California Drought (1987-1992); IWR Report 94-NDS-5.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, September 1993; Lessons Learned

From the California Drought (1987-1992); Executive Summary IWR Report 94-NDS-6.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, March 1994: Computer Models for

Water Resources Planning and Management (IWR Report 94-NDS-7)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Drought Impacts in a P&G Planning

Context, April 1994; The National Study of Water Management During Drought; IWR Report 94-

NDS-9.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, April 1994: Water Use Forecasts for the

Boston Area Using IWR-MAIN 6.0 (IWR Report 94-NDS-11).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, (to be published in 1994) Trigger

Planning for the MWRA Service Area (IWR Report 94-NDS-12).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, October 1985, Handbook of Methods

for the Evaluation of Water Conservation for Municipal and Industrial Water Supply.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, June 1988: Lessons Learned From the

1986 Drought; IWR Policy Study 88-PS-1. William Johnson’s (Hydrologic Engineering Center)

analysis of the actions taken during the 1986 drought in the Southeast.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, June 1988, IWR-Main Water Use

Forecasting System Version 5.1.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, March 1992; Guidelines For Risk and

Uncertainty Analysis in Water Resources Planning; Volume 1; IWR Report 92-R-1.
Bib-8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, October 1993; Guidebook For Risk

Perception and Communication in Water Resources Planning; Part 1, Underpinnings and Planning

Applications; IWR Report 93-R-13.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1994. Electric Power Annual 1992. Washington, DC.

Willardson, Anthony G., October 1986, Western State Drought Management; The Western States

Water Council; Creeekview Plaza; Suite A-201; 942 East 7145 South; Midvale, UT 84047

Wright, Kenneth R., ed. Water Rights of the Fifty States and Territories. Denver: American Water

Works Association, 1990.
Bib-9

National Study of Water Management During Drought Reports

Previously published reports include:

The National Study of Water Management During Drought: Report on the First Year of Study (IWR Report 91-NDS-1) prepared

by the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

A Preliminary Assessment of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs, Their Purposes and Susceptibility to Drought (IWR Report 91-NDS2), prepared by the Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, California.

An Assessment of What is Known About Drought (IWR Report 91-NDS-3) prepared by Planning Management Consultants, Ltd.,

Carbondale, Illinois.

Lessons Learned from the California Drought (1987-1992) (IWR Report 93-NDS-5) prepared by Planning and Management

Consultants, Ltd., Carbondale, Illinois.

Executive Summary: Lesson Learned from the California Drought 1987-1992 (IWR Report 94-NDS-6) is a concise summary of

NDS-5 (above), with some new information that became available after NDS-5 was published.

Computer Models for Water Resources Planning and Management (IWR Report 94-NDS-7) summarizes brand name models in

eight categories: general purpose software (such as spreadsheets), municipal and industrial water use forecasting, water

distribution systems (pipe networks), groundwater, watershed runoff, stream hydraulics, river and reservoir water quality, and

river and reservoir system operations.

National Study of Water Management During Drought: Report to Congress (IWR Report 94-NDS-12) summarizes the results of

the entire study.

Other reports will be published:

The National Drought Atlas (IWR Report 94-NDS-4) is a compendium of statistics which allows regional water managers to

determine the probability of droughts of a certain magnitude and duration.

Drought Impacts in a P&G Planning Context (IWR Report 94-NDS-9) 

Human and Environmental Impacts: California Drought 1987-92 (IWR Report 94-NDS-10) NDS-9 is a collection of papers by

California researchers who attempted to measure the impacts of the drought on the California economy and environment. NDS-10

shows how drought impacts can be measured in the accounting system of Principles and Guidelines. It uses the results of NDS-8

as an example.

Water Use Forecasts for the Boston Area Using IWR-MAIN 6.0 (IWR Report 94-NDS-11) demonstrates one of the first uses of

a beta test version of the new generation of MAIN. The objective of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness of long

term water conservation measures.

Trigger Planning for the MWRA Service Area (IWR Report 94-NDS-13) documents the development of what might be called “just

in time” water supply enhancement; a management system that can reduce economic and environmental investments in supply

and demand measures while maintaining necessary water supply reliability.

Governance and Water Management During Drought (IWR Report 94-NDS-14). Prepared by the Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). NDS-14 addresses the general subject of technical water management within the American

democratic process. It includes papers on law, decision making, public involvement, and two case studies that provided

information on political decision criteria to water managers.
Bib-10

William J. Werick Dr. Eugene Z. Stakhiv

Study Manager Chief, Policy and Special Studies Div.

Institute for Water Resources Institute for Water Resources

Casey Building Casey Building

7701 Telegraph Road 7701 Telegraph Road

Alexandria, VA 22315-3868 Alexandria, VA 22315-3868

Telephone: (703) 428-9055 Telephone (703) 428-6370

Colorado River Gaming Exercise (IWR Report 94-NDS-15) documents the use of a shared vision model in a gaming exercise to

evaluate operational and institutional alternatives for the management of the Colorado River. This report was prepared as a joint

project with the Study of Severe Sustained Drought in the Southwest United States.

Shared Vision Models and Collaborative Drought Planning (IWR Report 94-NDS-16), prepared by the University of Washington

for the Corps of Engineers, documents the use of the shared vision model in the National Drought Study case studies.

Lessons Learned from the National Drought Study Case Studies will be published contingent on the completion of the Marais des

Cygnes-Osage DPS, which was delayed by the flooding on the Missouri River during the Summer of 1993.

For further information on the National Drought Study, contact either:

Reports may be ordered by writing (above address), faxing a request to Arlene Nurthen, IWR Publications, at (703) 428-9042, or

by e-mail using ARLENE.NURTHEN@INET.HQ.USACE.ARMY.MIL. Some reports are available on the IWR Homepage:

http://www.wrc-ndc.usace.army.mil/iwr/index.htm