IN 21 CENTURY · which required representation of federal and nonfederal government entities and...

PREPARING FOR

DROUGHT

IN THE

21ST CENTURY

REPORT OF THE NATIONAL DROUGHT POLICY COMMISSION

Members of the National Drought Policy Commission

Dan Glickman, ChairSecretaryU.S. Department of Agriculture

The Honorable Roy BarnesGovernor of Georgia

Robert C. “Bob” BrownExecutive Vice PresidentFarm Credit Bank of Texas

The Honorable Sam Kathryn CampanaMayor of Scottsdale, Arizona

Ane D. DeisterExecutive Assistant to the General ManagerMetropolitan Water District ofSouthern California

John J. Kelly, Jr.Assistant Administrator for Weather ServicesU.S. Department of Commerce

Bernard KulikAssociate Administrator for Disaster AssistanceSmall Business Administration

Eluid L. MartinezCommissioner, Bureau of ReclamationU.S. Department of the Interior

The Honorable Ronald R. Morriss, Vice ChairSupervisorSanta Cruz County, Arizona

Robert L. MillerRancher and Past President of theIntertribal Agriculture Council

Ernesto RodriguezState Director for Emergency Management,New Mexico Department of Public Safety

Brian SchweitzerMontana farmer/rancher/soil scientist

A. Leon SmothersManager of Water ResourcesState of Kentucky

Joseph W. Westphal, Ph.D.Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

Larry ZensingerDirector, Human Services DivisionFederal Emergency Management Agency

MAY 2000

National Drought Policy Commission Report i

ForewordIn July 1998, the 105th Congress enacted Public Law 105-199, theNational Drought Policy Act (Appendix A). This law established “anadvisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on thecreation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to preparefor and respond to serious drought emergencies.” The law directed theCommission to “conduct a thorough study and submit a report onnational drought policy.”

Commission members were chosen according to provisions in the Act,which required representation of federal and nonfederal governmententities and the private sector. The Act directed the current Secretary ofthe U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, to chair the Commis-sion. Members of the Commission selected Ronald R. Morriss, CountySupervisor of Santa Cruz County, Arizona, and representing the NationalAssociation of Counties, as Vice Chair.

This document constitutes the report of the National Drought PolicyCommission. The report presents the basis for national drought policyand calls for commitment and resolve in providing sufficient resources toachieve the policy goals.

None of our recommendations should be construed as diminishing therights of states to control water through state law, as specifically directedby the National Drought Policy Act, nor as interfering in any way withstate, local, and tribal sovereignty. All of our recommendations shouldbe considered in light of the need to protect the environment, as alsorequired by the National Drought Policy Act.

ii National Drought Policy Commission Report

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requirealternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voiceand TDD).

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

National Drought Policy Commission Report iii

ContentsSUMMARY.................................................................................. Page v

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

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

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

DEFINING DROUGHT ................................................................. Page 4Stored Water and Natural Water Droughts ..........................

FINDINGS .................................................................................. Page 8Drought Programs .............................................................. Page 9

States .......................................................................... Page 9Regional Entities .......................................................... Page 10Localities ..................................................................... Page 12Tribes .......................................................................... Page 14Federal Government ................................................... Page 16

Planning .............................................................. Page 16Mitigation ........................................................... Page 18Monitoring/prediction and Research.................... Page 20Insurance ............................................................. Page 22Relief ................................................................... Page 24

Need to Coordinate Drought-related Programs .................. Page 26Need for Public Education .................................................. Page 27Need to Address Environmental Concerns .......................... Page 28Need to Address Drought-related Wildfires ......................... Page 30Need for Training and Technical Assistance ......................... Page 31Need to Address International Drought-related Issues ......... Page 32

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

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

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

APPENDIX B: Information Available from the National Drought Policy Commission ........................ Page 47

iv National Drought Policy Commission Report

National Drought Policy Commission Report v

SUMMARYDrought will occur at some time every year in the United States. It canand does extend over long periods and large areas, and it brings hard-ship.

Each time drought occurs, many of the same issues are raised. Principally,how much damage was inflicted, on whom, and where? Who is going topay for it? How can we prevent or at least reduce damages and theircosts in the future?

In 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy Act. The Act statedthat this nation would benefit from national drought policy based onpreparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency relief. Itacknowledged that this country has no consistent, comprehensive policydriving the federal role to help reduce the impacts of drought. The Actalso created the National Drought Policy Commission to advise Congresson how best to:

Integrate federal drought laws and programs with ongoing state,local, and tribal programs into a comprehensive national policy tomitigate the impacts of and respond to drought.

Improve public awareness of the need for drought mitigation.

Achieve a coordinated approach to drought mitigation and responseby governments and nongovernmental entities, including academic,private, and nonprofit interests.

Policy Statement

The Commission believes that national drought policy should use theresources of the federal government to support but not supplant norinterfere with state, tribal, regional, local, and individual efforts toreduce drought impacts. The guiding principles of national droughtpolicy should be:

1. Favor preparedness over insurance, insurance over relief, andincentives over regulation.

2. Set research priorities based on the potential of the researchresults to reduce drought impacts.

3. Coordinate the delivery of federal services through cooperationand collaboration with nonfederal entities.

This policy requires a shift from the current emphasis on drought relief. Itmeans we must adopt a forward-looking stance to reduce this nation’svulnerability to the impacts of drought. Preparedness—especially droughtplanning, plan implementation, and proactive mitigation—must becomethe cornerstone of national drought policy. This basic concept was the

The Commissioncontends that we canreduce this nation’svulnerability to the

impacts of drought bymaking preparedness—

especially droughtplanning, plan

implementation,and proactivemitigation—

the cornerstone ofnational drought policy.

vi National Drought Policy Commission Report

conclusion reached by the Senate Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief inMarch 1995, among other entities. It was universally supported withinthe Commission and by the overwhelming majority of people whocommented on the draft version of this report.

Basis of Recommendations

The Commission’s recommendations are based on our findings about thegaps among what is needed and what is provided by state, regional,local, tribal, and federal drought programs and laws. The findings stemfrom information presented by witnesses at our public hearings across thecountry and in written comments submitted independently, as well asfrom our own experience.

In keeping with the law that established the Commission, our recommen-dations relate primarily to the federal government’s role in nationaldrought policy. We view the federal government as one of many partnersneeded to reduce the impacts of drought. Much of the work must beaccomplished by state, local, and tribal governments and regional entitiessuch as river basin planning commissions and water districts. As ourrecommendations attest, federal resources should be used to augmentthe vital drought-related programs of these other entities.

Summary of Recommendations

We recommend first that Congress pass a National Drought PreparednessAct to establish a nonfederal/federal partnership through a NationalDrought Council as described in Recommendation 5.1 in the recommen-dations section of this report. The primary function of the Council is toensure that the goals of national drought policy are achieved. Our fivegoals are:

1. Incorporate planning, implementation of plans and proactive mitiga-tion measures, risk management, resource stewardship, environmen-tal considerations, and public education as the key elements of effec-tive national drought policy.

2. Improve collaboration among scientists and managers to enhance theeffectiveness of observation networks, monitoring, prediction, infor-mation delivery, and applied research and to foster public understand-ing of and preparedness for drought.

3. Develop and incorporate comprehensive insurance and financialstrategies into drought preparedness plans.

4. Maintain a safety net of emergency relief that emphasizes soundstewardship of natural resources and self-help.

5. Coordinate drought programs and response effectively, efficiently,and in a customer-oriented manner.

National Drought Policy Commission Report vii

Commitment is required to achieve the goals of national drought policy.That commitment must include resolve by the federal government toprovide dependable, long-term funding of the required work and thepersonnel to carry out the work. Allocation of the funds needed to fulfillsuch a commitment should be based on consideration of the costs andbenefits associated with drought impact-reduction measures.

In identifying drought as thetop weather event of the20th century, the climateperiodical Weatherwise(November/December 1999)had this to say: “More thanany other weather or climateevent, the 1930s droughtshaped American society. TheDust Bowl caused a legend-ary and influential migrationfrom the Southern Plains toCalifornia, revolutionizedagricultural policy on thePlains, and synchronized withthe Great Depression tocompound that event’smisery for millions. Even now,hundreds of heat recordsfrom the 1930s still standacross the Plains, and nodrought this century attackedso much of the country for solong. At its height in July1934, nearly two-thirds ofthe nation was considered tobe in a severe to extremedrought.”

viii National Drought Policy Commission Report

National Drought Policy Commission Report 1

FROM RELIEF TO READINESSFor years, farmers and ranchers, tribes, publicland managers, scientists, economists, smallbusiness owners, conservationists and wildlifemanagers, small and large municipalities, coun-ties, states, regional entities, and the federalgovernment have grappled with the far-reachingconsequences of drought. Numerous papers,reports, and books have recorded and analyzedthe impacts of drought. They have pointed outover and over again that drought planning andproactive mitigation programs may well reducethe need for huge federal emergency reliefexpenditures in drought-stricken regions—usually to assist farmers and ranchers and rebuildlocal economies. They have also indicated thatplanning and proactive mitigation may lessenconflicts over competition for water duringdrought.

Many states and local governments includedrought in their comprehensive water manage-ment, land-use, and long-term planning strate-gies. Some have devised separate drought plans.These government entities know best about localresources and local priorities, and they knowhow to communicate with their constituenciesand stimulate people to action. Some farmers,

ranchers, and other businesses also incorporatedrought concerns into their risk-managementassessments. Private entrepreneurs and nonprofitgroups with an interest in water managementand environmental issues work with govern-ments to carry out drought education projectsand water conservation initiatives that rely onthe cooperation of the general public. In re-sponse to individual challenges over the years,Congress has enacted laws to create federalprograms aimed at lessening the impacts ofdrought, and special congressional appropria-tions of federal taxpayer dollars underwrite muchof the drought relief.

Despite such well-intentioned efforts, from anational perspective this country relies on apatchy approach to reduce the impacts ofdrought. And despite the major role that thefederal government plays in responding todrought events, no single federal agency is in alead or coordinating position regarding drought.State, local, and tribal governments must dealindividually and separately with each federalagency involved in drought assistance. Crisismanagement—rather than planning and proac-tive mitigation measures—often characterizes thefederal response to drought emergencies.

Droughts can last for years. This isone reason why it is difficult todetermine if a loss in, say, land-scape investments is because ofdrought or because of decliningdisposable income from aneconomic downturn. But even themost conservative estimates of theimpacts of drought are large. TheCommission found several studiesof the federal government’sresponse to the major post-WorldWar II droughts. We updated thosefindings of federal drought expen-ditures to 1998 dollars and includethem here. “Government Re-sponse to Drought in the UnitedStates: Lessons from the Mid-1970’s” (June 1984), a reportfunded by the National Science

Foundation, indicated the federalgovernment spent $3.3 billionresponding to the 1953-1956drought. That study and “Manag-ing Resource Scarcity” by theWestern Governors’ Policy Officealso indicated that federal droughtresponse cost at least $6.5 billionduring the 1976-1977 drought andabout $6 billion during the 1988-1989 drought. The last figure doesnot include crop insurance pay-ments. Thus, extraordinary federalexpenses for drought alone overthe 1952-1988 period averaged atleast half a billion dollars per year.Clearly there were other costs.“Drought and Natural ResourcesManagement in the United States:Impacts and Implications of the

1987-1989 Drought” (Riebsame,Changnon, and Karl) documenteda reduction in crop production ofnearly $20 billion and an increasein food prices of more than $12billion because of the 1988drought. The report also noted thatlow flows on the Mississippi in1988 caused barge shipping pricesto double and triple, leading to anestimated $1 billion in increasedtransportation costs. At theCommission’s Austin hearing, TexasAgriculture Commissioner SusanCombs stated that the 1996 and1998 droughts in her state causeda loss of $4 billion in direct income,with the total impact to the state’seconomy close to $11 billion.

2 National Drought Policy Commission Report

Drought nearBracketville, Texas, in1980 ravaged thelandscape, almostdrying up thislivestock wateringpond.

The law that created theNational Drought PolicyCommission called for

national drought policybased on preparedness

rather than on crisismanagement, which is the

cornerstone of currentfederal responses to

drought.

OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTIONIn the National Drought Policy Act of 1998,Congress presented this country with a signifi-cant opportunity. The law recognized the needto prepare for and lessen the severe impacts ofdrought on the American people and the envi-ronment. It created the National Drought PolicyCommission to advise Congress on formulationof national drought policy based on prepared-ness, mitigation, and risk management ratherthan on crisis management, which is the corner-stone of current federal responses to drought.The Act also directed the Commission to presenta strategy that shifts from ad hoc federal actiontoward a “systematic process similar to those forother natural disasters” and to integrate federalprograms with “ongoing state, local, and tribalprograms.”

The National Drought Policy Act assigned eighttasks to the Commission, listed on the nextpage. The remainder of the report describes the

consequences of drought, discusses droughtdefinitions, and presents our findings of needsrelated to droughts, followed by conclusions ofunmet needs and lack of coordination, andrecommendations for action.


• Determine, in consultationwith the National DroughtMitigation Center in Lincoln,Nebraska, and other appropri-ate entities, what needs existon the federal, state, local,and tribal levels to preparefor and respond to droughtemergencies.

• Review all existing federal lawsand programs relating todrought.

• Review pertinent state, local,and tribal laws and programsrelating to drought.

• Determine what differencesexist between the needs ofthose affected by drought and

Charge to the National Drought Policy Commission

federal laws and programsdesigned to mitigate the impactsof and respond to drought.

• Collaborate with the WesternDrought Coordination Counciland other appropriate entities toconsider regional droughtinitiatives and the application ofsuch initiatives at the nationallevel.

• Recommend how federaldrought laws and programs canbe better integrated with on-going state, local, and tribalprograms into a comprehensivenational policy to mitigate theimpacts of and respond todrought emergencies withoutdiminishing the right of states to

control water through statelaw and considering the needto protect the environment.

• Recommend how to improvepublic awareness of the needfor drought mitigation anddevelop a coordinated ap-proach to drought mitigationand response by governmentaland nongovernmental entities,including academic, private,and nonprofit interests.

• Recommend whether allfederal drought preparationand response programs shouldbe consolidated under oneexisting federal agency and, ifso, identify such agency.

CONSEQUENCES OF DROUGHTDrought is perhaps the most obstinate andpernicious of the dramatic events that Natureconjures up. It can last longer and extend acrosslarger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods,and earthquakes. At its most severe, droughtcreates vast, windblown dust bowls—erodingthe landscape, damaging terrestrial and aquaticwildlife habitat, contributing to widespreadwildfire, causing hundreds of millions of dollarsin losses, and dashing hopes and dreams.

Drought may be the last straw in driving farmand ranch families off their land and livestockproducers out of business. It brings hardship towater-dependent enterprises such as commercialfishing, marinas, river outfitters and guides,landscapers, golf courses, and water themeparks. In many small communities, downturns infarming, ranching, and recreation have a ripplingeffect, causing loss of income for seed andimplement retailers, recreation equipmentsuppliers, and Main Street businesses—fromgrocery stores to clothing outlets, entertainment

operations, restaurants, and banks. This in turncreates revenue shortfalls for local governments.

Drought can have devastating impacts on thelives of migrant agricultural workers and peopleemployed in seasonal, recreation-dependentjobs. Drought can lead to tough decisions re-garding allocation of water and result in strin-gent water-use limitations. Drought can alsocause problems in ensuring safe drinking wateras well as adequate water supplies for municipal,county, and rural fire-fighting efforts and for thedilution of wastewater effluent.

In large managed river basins and water systemssuch as the Columbia, Missouri, the state andfederal California reservoir systems, the ColoradoRiver, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, andothers, drought creates or exacerbates conflictsabout who should get water. The most commonconflicts pit older, established uses such asagriculture and navigation against newer usessuch as recreation and water for growing munici-pal populations, and water for direct human useagainst water for ecosystems.


DEFINING DROUGHTThe definition of what drought is and whatdrought is not has profound implications for theenvironment and all segments of society, yet itmay be different for each. Many attempts havebeen made to develop a comprehensive andmeaningful definition. A generic definitionprovides a starting point: “Drought is a persis-tent and abnormal moisture deficiency havingadverse impacts on vegetation, animals, orpeople.”

The public perceives “drought” as a seriousdeparture from normal water conditions, adeparture that requires a public response toreduce negative impacts. For that reason, publicdeclarations of drought are often triggered byspecific and well-defined conditions, such as aspecific reservoir elevation on a specific date. Insome cases, there are well-defined exit pointsthat trigger a resumption of normal activity.These “drought triggers” become the practicaldefinition of drought for a particular region andfor specific issues. Defining these triggers is aninseparable part of planning for and respondingto droughts. Once these triggers are defined, aregion is much better able to estimate the costs,expected frequency, and risks of droughtresponse.


1930sThe decade-long drought affected

more than 60% of the nation. It

turned millions of acres into the Dust

Bowl across the Great Plains, caused a

huge migration from the southern

Plains to California, and revolutionized

agriculture policy on the Plains.

1950to

1956

Drought across the Southwest and

southern Plains claimed millions of

cattle and forced hundreds of

ranchers to ship their livestock to

other regions of the country, then

moved northward to affect much of

the central United States.

Drought Snapshots from1961

to1966

Many parts of the Northeast

experienced a drought of record.

President Lyndon Johnson called

an emergency meeting to

mediate controversies between

New York and Pennsylvania over

water allocation along the

Delaware River.

The Commission has found that in reality,drought is defined differently in different situa-tions. For example, two months without rainfallduring the growing season may result in seriousdrought conditions for farmers and homeownersin the eastern half of the country. The same dryperiod may be normal for those in the West,where water users may be more concerned withreservoir levels, which in turn are dependent onwinter snow pack levels.

In addition, the definition of what is drought hasdifferent functions depending on the goals to beachieved. For the purposes of planning andproactive mitigation, communities, businessowners, and individuals need fact-based informa-tion that helps define strategies to lessen thepotential impacts of drought. The declarationthat “this is drought” triggers certain actionssuch as restrictions on the availability of water tousers and activation of government responseprograms.

National drought policy must therefore definedrought so that it meets the needs of diversewater users and for diverse functions. It must beflexible enough to include a variety of droughtsituations. It must also be specific enough todistinguish between those situations that are truedrought emergencies and those that are normalcyclical conditions.

National Drought Policy Commission Report 5National Drought Policy Commission Report 5

20th Century America

Mid 1980s

to

mid 1990sProlonged drought lasting up to

seven years hit California and the

Pacific Northwest. The Midwest

and parts of the Southeast

experienced drought emergencies

in 1988.

1976to

1977

Lack of winter snowfall resultedin extreme drought conditions inthe Pacific Northwest andCalifornia. This drought wasshort lived. Nevertheless it placedgreat stress on water supplies.

Late1990s

Hawaii faced several years ofdrought, and the southeastern andmid-Atlantic states felt the impactsof one of the worst droughts in 100years, which extended through partsof the Northeast.

Because of the extremely diverse climates,topographies, watersheds, water sources, andwater uses within this country, we find it imprac-tical to define specific drought thresholds thatcould act as triggers for drought actions forvarious parts of the country. However, we recog-nize that a suite of objective triggers similar tothose used by the Australian Drought PolicyReview Task Force has the advantage of takingmuch of the politics out of drought-responsedecisions. As in Australia, these should be bothsupply-type triggers, reflecting moisture deficien-cies caused by acts of nature (lack of rain, exces-sive temperatures), as well as demand-typetriggers reflecting drought impacts.

National drought policymust be flexible enoughto include a variety of

drought situations. It mustalso be specific enough todistinguish between those

situations that are truedrought emergencies and

those that are normalcyclical conditions.

Examples of current supply-type triggers used ingeneral to define drought or trigger actionsrelated to potential drought include: precipita-tion less than 60% of normal for the season orpresent water year (used by the NationalWeather Service’s Western Region); precipitationless than 85% of normal over the past sixmonths (used by the National Weather Service’sEastern Region); the Palmer Drought Index -2.0or less; and consolidated drought indices at the20th percentile or less (used by the DroughtMonitor). For federal action, more rigid triggerssuch as 5th percentile drought might be appro-priate, reflecting truly unusual circumstances.

Examples of demand (impact) based triggersinclude water supply less than 60% of normal(used by the National Weather Service’s WesternRegion) and various crop loss thresholds used bythe U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Stored Water” and“Natural Water” Droughts

We note that the United States experiences twotypes of drought. “Stored water” droughts occurwhen large stores of water in man-made reser-voirs, natural lakes, and groundwater aquifers aredepleted by very long, unusually low periods ofprecipitation. “Natural water” droughts happen


quickly and fairly frequently after just a fewweeks or months of below-normal rainfall.

Those who share stored water are rarely affectedby less than normal precipitation because thesystems are designed to provide water duringthose times. But the very success of such systemscreates a new kind of vulnerability to droughtthat was revealed in the Northeast duringdrought in the 1960s, the 1976-1977 and 1987-1992 droughts in California, droughts aroundthe country in the late 1980s, and the mid-Atlantic, southeastern, and northeastern droughtin 1999. Specific issues vary, but the pattern iscommon.

People without enough stored water buildreservoirs or tap into surface or groundwaterstorage.

Reliable water helps support greater popula-tions and more diverse uses of water. Hydro-power dams create popular fishing andboating lakes and valuable lake view prop-erty. Reservoir operating policies are sup-posed to assure minimum flows for fish andwastewater dilution when there wouldotherwise not be enough water in thestream. Cities and farmers increase theirwithdrawals as they prosper and grow.

An unusually long dry period forces reservoiroperators to draw down these man-madelakes to support withdrawals for cities andfarms, produce hydropower, and keepenough water in navigation channels forbarges to float. But homes and businessesaround the lake now have views of mud flats.Boat ramps no longer reach the water. Lakefisheries suffer when releases are made forriverine species.

No one can tell when it will rain enough toreverse this trend, so water deliveries have tobe reduced, but to whom first and by howmuch?

There may be a conflict between fairness andgood economic policy in making waterallocations. The newest water uses maygenerate more income and tax revenue thanthe oldest established uses. Such conflicts arenormally resolved on a case-by-case basis.

Public testimony at the Commission’s hearing inLos Angeles and comments from the Army Corpsof Engineers pointed out that stored watersystem managers develop drought contingencyplans that call for the staged curtailment of theleast important uses of water (such as lawnwatering) during droughts. Communities mayelect to accept these drought-related reductionsrather than add reservoir capacity to meetgrowing needs.

Stored water managers consider the risks associ-ated with the probability of system failure, theuncertain effectiveness of drought curtailmentmeasures, uncertainty in estimates of droughtseverity and duration, and the tolerance of utilitycustomers for water use curtailments. Theseconcepts are not routinely applied to managedrought impacts on agriculture, but they couldbe. As Guy Martin of the Western Urban WaterCoalition advised the Commission, “Overall, webelieve there is a missed opportunity to link theresources of the urban water sector with theagricultural sector. While the end water use maybe different, the techniques necessary to planfor, conduct, assess, monitor and implementconservation techniques to alleviate droughtimpacts cover all sectors.”

Natural water droughts mostly affect peoplesuch as farmers and ranchers, forest and woodlotowners and managers, customers of many watersystems, and the owners of water-dependentbusinesses who rely on direct precipitation orunregulated stream flows. These people areusually the first to feel the effects of drought.


Farmers who do not have irrigation systems, forexample, take a risk when they plant crops,assuming that there will be enough rainthroughout the growing season to produce asuccessful harvest. For the most part, the risk isbased on how often there has been enough rainin the past. Long-term predictions of precipita-tion are still too unreliable to reduce that risksignificantly.

At our hearings across the country, we were toldof several gaps among existing programs andthe needs of farmers and ranchers who do notrely on irrigation:

Farmers and ranchers may lack informationabout local climate and drought conditionsand predictions. Many also lack basic soilinformation; a soil survey remains to becompleted for approximately 10% of thecountry. These deficiencies can limit afarmer’s or rancher’s ability to make timelydecisions on the types of crops to plant orwhether to reduce stocking rates on therange.

Many farmers and ranchers do not haveaccess to available information and otherresources to develop and implement a waterconservation/drought plan. Less than 10% offarmers and ranchers are receiving technicalassistance to help them develop and imple-ment such plans, and an even smaller num-ber are receiving cost-share assistance forthese plans.

Federal crop insurance covers only the“primary” crops grown and does not extendto other crops or to livestock. We learnedthat during drought the price of transportingfeed after stored supplies are used up isprohibitive in many cases, as is the price oftransporting water to livestock where pondshave gone dry.

We heard too that when drought affects theincomes of farmers and ranchers and the ownersof water-dependent businesses, it also affects theincomes of nearby local businesses. Such eco-nomic impacts may extend further to nearbycities.

The definition of whatdrought is and whatdrought is not has

profound implicationsfor the environment andall segments of society,

yet it may be different foreach. Many attempts have

been made to developa comprehensive andmeaningful definition.

A generic definition providesa starting point: “Drought

is a persistent andabnormal moisture

deficiency having adverseimpacts on vegetation,

animals, or people.”


FINDINGSOur assessments of federal, regional, tribal, state,and local drought-related programs indicate thatthere is broad-based understanding of the valueand benefits of drought preparedness. Theassessments also revealed that, overall, federaldrought assistance to states, local governments,tribes, and individuals is primarily relief oriented.Few federal programs are designed to providedrought preparedness assistance. Furthermore,public testimony strongly indicated varyingdegrees of satisfaction with the federal programs.

Our deliberations have convinced us that thiscountry can and must do better to prepare fordrought in the future. At our public hearings,more than one hundred people testified onbehalf of urban and rural water associations,tribes, federal agencies, state and county govern-ments, municipalities, livestock production andfarmer associations, and conservation groups(Appendix B, File A). With respect to U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture programs, we heard similarcriticisms from farmers, ranchers, and tribalrepresentatives in Austin and El Paso, Texas,Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, D.C., and Billings,Montana. These people expressed concern thatthe application process for agricultural droughtassistance programs is too cumbersome, that ittakes too long to make decisions, and thatplacing federal decision-making outside the locallevel often results in disconnection among theapplicants and the programs. Livestock produc-ers consistently pointed out that their operationsare excluded from agricultural assistance pro-grams. Representatives from state, county, andlocal agricultural agencies noted communicationand coordination challenges within the Depart-ment of Agriculture. On balance, we also heardabout successful programs in the Department ofAgriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation, andother federal agencies.

This testimony, combined with written com-ments submitted independently, helped identifygaps among federal, state, local, regional, and

tribal programs and the people those programsare designed to serve. We also reviewed informa-tion and analyses prepared by the five WorkingGroups—agriculture; environment; municipaland industrial water; local government, commu-nity, and business; and monitoring and predic-tion—that we established to assist us in assessingstate, regional, local, tribal, and federal droughtprograms and related laws (Appendix B, File B).Nonfederal and federal experts in various aspectsof drought, including staff of the NationalDrought Mitigation Center, formed the WorkingGroups. The Interagency Contacts Group coordi-nated the Working Groups and worked with theCommission’s staff to prepare this report. Thiswork also identified gaps in service delivery.

The discussion below summarizes our findings.We emphasize that current programs may covergaps in service delivery partially in some casesand more fully in some locations than in others.Yet in many critical areas of drought prepared-ness, we heard that current federal programs donot provide any measurable assistance. Collec-tively, the gaps are significant and merit atten-tion and remedies.

The Commission met inLos Angeles, California,Scottsdale, Arizona, andWashington, D.C., andseveral times through

teleconference technology.Public hearings were heldin Los Angeles, California,El Paso and Austin Texas,Atlanta, Georgia, Billings,

Montana, and Washington,D.C. All meetings of the

Commission and all publichearings were announcedin advance, according tofederal procedures, andwere open to the public.

More information onthe Commission’s findingsis available as described

in Appendix B.


Drought Programs

States

We learned that as of June 1999, 30 states haddrought plans, with most of those oriented torelief rather than preparedness (Appendix B,File C). Two states had delegated drought plan-ning to local authorities, and three states weredeveloping drought plans. In general, the stateswith larger numbers of people and resources atrisk of drought tend to have more detailed stateprograms.

Five states reported that they have some droughtfunding mechanisms not tied to a federal admin-istrative or presidential declaration of droughtemergency. For example, Texas has a Commu-nity Development Program Disaster Relief Fundthat can provide up to $350,000 in grant moneyfor small communities (less than 50,000 resi-dents) to support their permanent water supplyinfrastructure.

Our assessments pointed out that in most states,drought responsibilities are normally located inthe agencies that house the functions of agricul-ture, natural resources, water management,environment, or emergency management. Fewerthan five states reported that they have indepen-dent, designated drought coordinators, whilemore than 20 have drought task forces. Wiscon-sin, for example, lacks a specific drought planbut does use an ad hoc drought task force. InMaine, representatives from the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and the University of Maine Water Re-search Program issued a report in January 2000that recommended the Maine Drought TaskForce develop a master plan or vision. NewMexico has completed a drought plan in con-junction with the Bureau of Reclamation, whichprovided assistance in developing the plan.Arizona and Hawaii are currently involved in asimilar process with the Bureau.

California has a well-developed process forgeneral water management planning throughthe Central Valley Improvement Act and the

state’s Urban Water Management Planning Act.These acts create a key link for water shortageplanning and coordination. The urban waterlegislation, for example, requires water purveyorsserving more than 3,000 acre-feet annually ormore than 3,000 connections to prepare plans todemonstrate how they would respond to cut-backs of up to 50% in their supplies in the eventof drought or natural disasters. The plans mustbe updated every five years and are submitted tothe California Department of Water Resources.

Utah is one example of a state that approachesdrought from several angles. The state recentlycompleted a state drought plan that also in-cluded several counties and was funded by theBureau of Reclamation. In comments submittedto the Commission, state officials noted thatstate law related to flood control and droughtemergencies grants Utah counties the authorityto levy taxes and generate funds to aid in pro-grams to increase precipitation. Utah’s Depart-ment of Agriculture and Food has a low-interestloan program available to assist drought-strickenfarmers and ranchers. The loans help fundmeasures such as installation of pipelines, tanks,and troughs; construction and deepening ofwells; development of springs or seeps; construc-tion of tail water recovery pits for irrigationsystems; and correction of conservation prob-lems on farmland caused by severe drought.Utah Department of Agriculture and Food offi-cials suggested that federal assistance should beavailable to transport resources from areas notexperiencing drought to areas that are in adrought.

In written comments and through testimonyduring the Commission’s public hearings, stateofficials often noted that federal assistance couldgo far to help localities and states prepare fordrought, including assistance for planning andproactive mitigation measures. In their com-ments to the Commission, the governors of Iowaand Missouri stated that “coordination amongthe various existing federal programs is neces-sary, as is coordination between federal agencies


and the states.” The two governors emphasizedthat such coordination is preferable to “newfederal programs with regulatory authority overthe states.”

Regional Entities

There are several regional entities that eitherfocus on drought or include drought as a majorcomponent of their work (Appendix B, File D).The Western Drought Coordination Council, forexample, presented the Commission with a setof potential actions that focus on drought plan-ning, impact-reduction measures, and effectiveresponse. And the Tarrant Regional Water District(Texas) incorporates simulated drought exercisesas a training tool in its drought planning.

The Commission received a number of com-ments that encouraged regional drought plan-ning or incorporation of drought concerns intocomprehensive regional water managementplans. The comments echoed earlier recommen-dations of the 1990 National ScienceFoundation’s Drought Water ManagementWorkshop. Participants at the workshop con-cluded, “The real need is to institutionalizedrought management into improved overallwater management systems.” They stated thatattempts to understand and address droughtproblems will be unsuccessful unless the largercontext of which they are an inseparable part isalso understood and addressed. The Army Corps

In 1999, Kentucky experienced the driest July-September period in 105 years of record. Yet noneof the water systems in the state required outsideemergency assistance. Officials credit Kentucky’sdrought management planning program, adoptedin 1993—a program that paid off through pre-drought water conservation measures and betterpreparedness for citizens and communities. Thestate provided financial and technical assistance aswell as detailed guidelines to assist communities indeveloping management plans. Those plans calledat a minimum for water systems to project futurewater demand; evaluate the adequacy of watersupplies and infrastructure; and, where gapsexisted among current capabilities and futureneeds, determine the best means and the associ-ated costs to meet those needs.

The six-county, multi-municipalMetropolitan Water District ofSouthern California incorporatesdrought planning and prepared-ness in its comprehensive Inte-grated Resources Plan and WaterSurplus and Demand Manage-ment Plan. Testimony at ourhearing in Los Angeles noted thatthe District emphasizes citizen andcustomer participation in waterconservation as well as long-termwater supply and resource man-agement programs for a regionreceiving 10 to 15 inches ofrainfall in an average year.

Metropolitan’s plans ensure reliablewater supplies for more than 16million people (municipal, indus-trial, commercial, and agriculturaluses) despite weather, regulatory,or disaster-based drought pressures.The southern California region hasspent $8 billion for water conserva-tion, recycling, and storage projectssince 1982, and those investmentsappear to be paying off. The regionis using less water today than in1975, even though the populationincreased by 5 million people from1975 to 1999.

The Denver, Colorado area boasts asimilar success. The Denver WaterAuthority told us that their year-round water conservation program“has reduced water demand overthe last 20 years. Even though thepopulation of our service area hasincreased from 840,000 in 1980 to970,000 in 1998, the total waterwe deliver has stayed relatively flatat around 77 billion gallons peryear. We attribute much of this toour water conservation efforts.”

of Engineers drew a similar conclusion in the firstyear (1989) of the National Drought Study.

The regional approach has been undertaken inthe past and survives today. On June 14, 1965,during the height of the 1960s drought in theNortheast, New York City stopped releases fromits Delaware River reservoirs to maintain itswithdrawal rate. With less fresh water flowingpast Philadelphia, there was a risk that salt waterwould be drawn into Philadelphia’s water supplysystem. In August, President Lyndon Johnsonconvened a special meeting of governors andmayors from the Delaware Basin that led toemergency measures for managing theDelaware. The President then asked Congress for


funds to start the North Atlantic Regional Study,a framework on which subsequent basin andproject justification studies in the North Atlanticregion would be based.

A month before the August meeting, the Presi-dent had signed the Water Resources PlanningAct, which established the Water ResourcesCouncil. The Act and the North Atlantic RegionalStudy were the predecessors of the currentfederal rules for water resources planning thatemphasize a basin perspective, multi-objectiveassessments, public involvement, and risk assess-ment. Several federal/state river basin organiza-tions were formed under Title II of the WaterResources Planning Act, but supporting federalfunds were terminated in 1981. The organiza-tions that survive take a variety of forms de-signed by their member states to address specificissues, often including drought. Their diversity isdemonstrated in the following sample from thenortheastern quadrant of the country.

The Delaware River Basin Commission,created in 1961, is active in drought man-agement. The Commission informed us theyhave coordinated efforts to negotiatedrought mitigation programs throughout theDelaware River Basin. Such initiatives helpcities and states in the basin prepare for, notsimply respond to, drought. The programshave been responsible for preserving billionsof gallons of reservoir storage while maintain-ing streamflows during drought periods.

The Susquehanna River Basin Commission,created in 1970, was built on a statute similarto that of the Delaware River Basin Commis-sion and is likewise engaged in droughtmanagement. The Commission presents theopportunity for major water users and otherinterested parties to assess the effectivenessof drought management measures, list thelessons learned in managing drought, andcompile and distribute the findings to keydecision makers. The Commission told usthat they recently developed a plan to coor-dinate drought management activities

among the signatory agencies in the riverbasin. The next stage of the plan will developstrategies to mitigate environmental impactsresulting from drought. Those strategiesincorporate what the Commission describedas detailed instream flow needs assessmentsthat are cutting-edge technologies in envi-ronmental drought management.

Congress ratified an interstate compact forthe Potomac River, but the member statesdid not sign it. They rely instead on theInterstate Compact on the Potomac Riverformed under the older (1940) PotomacValley Compact. This organization helpedbroker a water supply agreement amongMaryland, Virginia, and the District of Co-lumbia that relies on joint operation andannual drought exercises to assure depend-able water supply. It has demonstrated thatcoordination and management of waterresources on a regional multi-jurisdictionalbasis during drought periods can allow amajor metropolitan area to sustain itself. Thisgroup emphasized that its coordinationefforts involve “the development and mainte-nance of a drought preparedness plan andthe annual exercise of that plan.” The exer-cise is undertaken “to refine [the plan’s]relevance and bring newly hired and replace-ment personnel from the several jurisdictionsand water suppliers up to date on this criticalissue of regional water resources manage-ment.”

The Ohio River Basin Commission, estab-lished in 1971, is an informal structure thatserves as a forum to discuss, study, develop,and coordinate regional policies and posi-tions on common interstate water issues.Member states include Illinois, Indiana,Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. TheCommission should not be confused with theOhio River Valley Sanitation Commission,which was formed in 1948 under an inter-state compact to manage water quality.


Localities

A sample survey of county officials conducted bythe National Association of Counties (NACO) in1999 indicated that county governments prima-rily rely on federal programs for drought assis-tance (Appendix B, File E). More than seventy-five percent of the 177 respondents indicatedthat they use federal programs to respondduring drought emergencies. This represents asmall sample of the 3,066 counties across thecountry. However, it is a starting place to under-stand local government needs.

Twenty percent of the 177 respondents havecounty or city drought assistance programs orregulations that include drought emergencyresponse as well as water conservation plansincorporating drought contingency procedures.Most counties have emergency procedures fordisasters, including drought, and communicationchannels to get information to their populations.

County officials must try to manage fragmentedfederal assistance programs to help their con-stituents. Links may exist between the U.S.Department of Agriculture and farmers throughCooperative Extension offices, the Department’sService Centers, and Resource Conservation andDevelopment Councils. But coordination andcommunication may not be efficient, or extendbeyond traditional agricultural users, especiallyduring a drought emergency. The Commissionheard considerable testimony from county andother local officials that these linkages are oftenladen with bureaucracy, delays, and program

Examples of Localities with Drought-related Programs:

Thirty-five percent of the 177 counties that responded to the National Association of Counties’ 1999 samplesurvey were from Georgia. Others included:

Graham County, Arizona Becker County, Minnesota Williamson County, TexasNavajo County, Arizona Yellowstone County, Montana Gloucester County, VirginiaYuba County, California Benson County, North Dakota Marion County, West VirginiaBannock County, Idaho Muskingum County, Ohio Dane County, WisconsinLake County, Indiana Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

We also heard about many drought preparedness measures developed by municipalities, including those inNew York City, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Denver, Colorado. More than 400 local agencies in California engagein drought preparedness efforts, including agencies in the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

guidelines that do not reflect environmental,resource, temperature, and climate variabilityacross the country. In Billings, Montana, forexample, the important drought-related factor ofwind is not included in the Department ofAgriculture’s assessment process. In addition,many people testified to the significant lack ofweather and streamflow gages and data ingeneral that are needed to substantiate, review,and make decisions about their applications foragricultural assistance.

Counties, towns, and rural areas are facingsuburban growth and development. To providepublic health, safety, and welfare services, coun-ties with increasing populations must be able toplan for future needs. A local government’sability to plan for drought is dramatically im-proved if technical data, tools, and resources areavailable.

Local governments must also inform and edu-cate their constituents of the need for droughtplanning, especially when an emergency is notimminent. Many local governments have publicinformation programs on water resources thatcould be supplemented with information aboutdrought.

Communities can plan to minimize impactswhen a drought reduces water supplies. With theexception of the city of Santa Barbara andsurrounding communities in California duringthe 1987-1992 drought, droughts have notcreated a potable water emergency in large citiessince the 1960s. This is in part because of the


At the Commission’s hearing inAtlanta, Georgia, County Commis-sioner George Bird of CandlerCounty, Georgia, described theGeorgia Water ManagementCampaign. The Campaign’smission is to enhance the abilitiesof local governments to manageand protect water resources bytranslating water managementpolicies into local governmentdecision-making capabilities,

guidance, and technical assistance.To achieve this mission, the Cam-paign developed outreach toolssuch as public service announce-ments, videos, and case studies andconvened summits on water issuesfor local officials. The Campaign’s21 members of the Local Govern-ment Advisory Board serve asambassadors and provide overallguidance. The Campaign was

created through a partnershipamong the Georgia EnvironmentalProtection Division, GeorgiaEnvironmental Facilities Authority,and the Association of CountyCommissioners of Georgia. AsCommissioner Bird said, “Waterissues are a developing priority forlocal governments. Education andpublic input are key to localdecision making.”

amount of planning large cities do. But emer-gency conditions—not enough water for mini-mal household uses—may still arise in smallcommunities when droughts are longer or moresevere than anticipated or when other factorsunexpectedly interrupt or pollute water supplies.

Some cities use data from the U.S. GeologicalSurvey and the National Oceanic and Atmo-spheric Administration in developing and imple-menting their plans. And federal water agenciescan sell space in existing federal reservoirs forurban water supplies. In cities near such reser-voirs, this may be the least expensive way to getmore water.

Small communities and the millions of “self-supplied” Americans, who rely on their own wells,are likely to have problems during prolongeddrought. Small water systems tend to be vulner-able because they have only one source of water.Such systems may also face high per-customercosts to meet the latest federal safe drinking waterstandards. These factors have encouraged thetakeover of small systems by large systems whereit is economically feasible. But areas with very lowpopulation density remain at risk. Some smallcommunities may be able to modify existingwatershed structures, initially designed only forflood control, to provide storage for municipaland industrial water.

George Bird,Candler County(Georgia)Commissionerat theCommission’shearing inAtlanta.


Tribes

On tribal lands, dominant uses of water includeagriculture, recreation, municipal and industrial,and social, cultural, and religious purposes.Tribes also support water use for fish and wildlifeand other environmental goals.

There are approximately 560 federally recog-nized tribes within the United States—306 in theconterminous 48 states, with 289 of those westof the Mississippi River where 95 percent of alltribal trust land is located. The Department ofthe Interior notes that tribal lands, includingofficial reservations, currently cover about 55million acres, or roughly three percent of thecountry except for Alaska and Hawaii. The largestarea is the Navajo Nation, while some federallyrecognized tribes have no land. The states withthe highest tribal populations are Oklahoma,California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Alaska.

By any measure, the scope of tribal droughtissues in the West is immense. Tribes have experi-enced the vagaries of climate on this continentfor many thousands of years, and more recent

Andy Lipkis,ExecutiveDirector ofTreePeople.

The Commission was informed of variousproactive drought mitigation activitiesdeveloped at the local level, often inpartnership with state and federal agenciesthrough technical and financial incentiveprograms. In Los Angeles, “Second Nature:Adapting LA’s Landscape for SustainableLiving” is a program run by the nonprofitTreePeople organization. The programinvolves young people in urban landscaperetrofits such as planting trees and citizensand businesses in capturing storm water andadjusting runoff patterns for residences andcommercial buildings. In these and other ways,TreePeople reinforces the principle that locallydeveloped solutions can be effective.


times have proved to be no exception. Flexibilitywas the key to adaptation and relative self-sufficiency in earlier times. When the ability tocope in one place was exceeded, tribes moved,later returning when climate permitted. Sincethe loss of many of their ancestral lands, how-ever, such flexibility is no longer possible for thetribes.

Some tribes are turning to planning as a viablemeans of lessening the impacts of drought ontribal lands and populations. But others ex-pressed their concerns that criteria for nationaldrought policy might compromise their culturalor religious beliefs, and they specifically askedthat this not occur. Some tribes were also reluc-tant to disclose water-related information be-cause of ongoing negotiations over water rights.They asked that any national drought policy besensitive to these issues and that the Commissionuphold the special relationship that tribes havewith the federal government.

As a result of our outreach effort, we found thatsix tribes—the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation,Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, San CarlosApache Tribe, and Zuni Pueblo—are in theprocess of developing drought contingencyplans through cooperative agreements with theBureau of Reclamation (Appendix B, File F).

Based on these experiences, developing droughtplans can cost from $25,000 to $200,000.

But in Billings, Montana, representatives fromseven tribes consistently reported frustration innot being able to rely on the procedures andprocesses associated with the “Government-to-Government” Executive Order signed by Presi-dent Clinton. They described the bureaucraticquagmire associated with the Bureau of IndianAffairs. Most tribal witnesses also explained thateligibility criteria and cost-share rates in manycurrent drought-related programs must bemodified to address specific tribal situations.They emphasized that such programs must beadequately funded.

We learned from comments submitted by tribesfrom Florida to Alaska and from the IntertribalAgriculture Council that many tribal lands lackcurrent soil survey, streamgaging, and rangecondition information. Such information iscritical to basic planning as well as droughtplanning. Some tribes indicated that they lackaccess to snow amount, soil moisture, andstream flow information needed in planning andfor triggering emergency response efforts. Manytribes noted the need for technical and financialassistance to plan and implement conservationmeasures such as wells, springs, and ponds for

Mike Tatsey, of theBlackfeet Tribe, at theCommission’s hearing inBillings, Montana. Severaltribal representatives toldthe Commission that thebasic information and toolsneeded to prepare fordrought are not availableon tribal lands.


livestock water; cross fences for grazing manage-ment; and other practices to enhance wildlifeand protect against wildfire. They emphasizedthat this assistance must be easily and locallyaccessible to tribal members.

Federal Government

We found that 88 drought-related federal pro-grams were funded within the past ten years(Appendix B, Files G and H). We classed thoseprograms into four broad program categories:(1) preparedness, including planning and mitiga-tion; (2) information, including monitoring/prediction and research; (3) insurance; and (4)emergency response. Seven of these programsprovide assistance for drought planning, 42 fordrought mitigation, 22 for drought-relatedmonitoring/prediction and research, and 47 forresponse. These numbers total more than 88because some programs cover more than onefacet of drought. For example, some of themitigation programs also contain droughtplanning and response elements.

Planning. Many people who commented duringall of our hearings recognized the importance ofcomprehensive long-term strategies that incor-porate drought planning and plan implementa-tion. We also heard often that drought should bea consideration in comprehensive water manage-ment planning. In addition, Jennifer Salisbury,the Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Energy,Minerals, & Natural Resources Department,urged us to consider forest resource stewardshipprograms as drought preparedness and mitiga-tion programs.

Many peoplewho commented

during our proceedingsrecognized the importanceof comprehensive long-termstrategies that incorporatedrought planning and plan

implementation.

The three federal entities with the greatestfederal responsibilities when drought occurs arethe U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureauof Reclamation, and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. Title II of Public Law 102-250 (TheReclamation States Emergency Drought ReliefAct of 1991) authorized the Bureau of Reclama-tion to prepare or participate in the preparationof cooperative drought contingency plans for theprevention or mitigation of adverse effects ofdrought conditions in consultation with otherappropriate federal and state officials (of all 50states and U.S. territories); tribes; and public,private, and local entities. Until very recently,these efforts were funded from emergency orsupplemental funds. In its Fiscal Year 2000budget, the Bureau of Reclamation requested$500,000 for the program. Congress appropri-ated $3,000,000, but restricted use of thosefunds primarily to the leasing of water. TheBureau also requested $500,000 in its 2001budget.

Public Law 92-251 allows the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to develop water resource plans forstates, tribes, and territories. The plans can coverany aspect of water and water-related landissues, including drought preparedness if that iswhat a state or tribe wants. Funding is limited to$500,000 annually for each state or tribe. Indi-vidual studies (there may be more than one perstate or tribe per year) generally cost $25,000 to$75,000, an amount that is split 50-50 betweenthe state or tribe and the Corps. The priorities ofthe nonfederal sponsor determine which aspectof water management will be studied. Topics ofstudies conducted in recent years include watersupply and demand, water quality, environmen-tal conservation/restoration, wetlands evaluation,dam safety/failure, flood damage, flood plainmanagement, coastal zone management/protec-tion, and harbors/ports. This Corps programfunded the preparatory work that preceded thevirtual drought exercise in Tarrant County, Texas(see above, “Regional Entities”).


The 1935 Soil Conservation Act authorized theU.S. Department of Agriculture to provideassistance for individual farmers and ranchers todevelop and implement conservation plans. Thislegislation responded to the persistent droughtof the 1930s and the resulting “Dust Bowl”caused by severe wind erosion. For 65 years,hundreds of thousands of farmers and ranchershave received technical and financial assistanceto address critical resource needs. Under thisvoluntary program, assistance is provided at therequest of the farmer and normally for specificneeds such as erosion, water quality, or irrigationproblems that the farmer identifies.

Limited authorities and funds as well as lack ofcoordination among and within federal agencieshinder these planning efforts. For the Bureau ofReclamation’s Drought Program, requests forplanning assistance far outweigh available funds,and the program provides technical assistanceonly, not direct grants. The Corps of Engineerswater resource planning program is not specifi-cally targeted to drought needs, and drought isnot receiving much attention in these efforts.Witnesses told us that there is too much pro-gram bureaucracy within the Department ofAgriculture. Tribal representatives expressedappreciation for the Department ‘s current effortto place offices on tribal lands, but stated theyare far behind their non-tribal counterparts.

We heard, too, that developing a drought planor incorporating drought concerns into a morecomprehensive water management plan is oflittle value unless the plan is implemented.Successful implementation of communitydrought plans requires practice, particularlywhen the people who are responsible for re-sponding to drought may not be the same fromdrought to drought. Enough time passes be-tween droughts that the issues change, wateruse changes, and professional staff membersretire or move to new jobs. Many of the entitiesinvolved in drought response during the late1990s, for example, were also involved in

drought response during the late 1980s, but veryfew of the same people were still participating.As the Army Corps of Engineers, the DenverWater Authority, and the Interstate Compact onthe Potomac River told us, communities need toprepare plans for drought and then exercisethem, like fire drills, to keep the plan up to dateand train new staff.

Several of these points were reinforced at theCommission’s hearing in Atlanta, Georgia, by Dr.Anne Steinemann, an assistant professor at theGeorgia Institute of Technology Graduate CityPlanning Program. From her study of more than100 drought plans in the Southeast, she con-cluded in part that “even the most technicallysophisticated and detailed plans with a lot ofdata may be ineffective if water officials andstakeholders can’t or won’t implement thesemeasures….” Dr. Steinemann also told theCommission that drought planning often suffersfrom lack of “agency staff experienced andexpert in drought” and that “drought plans can’tbe developed without consulting the peoplewho have institutional experience in managingdrought.”

During the Commission’shearing in Atlanta,Georgia, AnneSteinemann, Ph.D.,described the findingsand conclusions fromher study of droughtplans in the Southeast.


Mitigation. Mitigation is often associated withactions taken after the fact to remedy damagecaused by human or natural disturbances. In thecontext of this report, we use the term “mitiga-tion” to describe actions taken prior to andduring drought events to reduce potentialimpacts and thus reduce the costs of respondingto drought. As such, mitigation is an essential,proactive element of drought preparedness.

Proactive drought mitigation comprises a broadrange of measures—from the installation oflivestock watering ponds on ranches and tech-nologies and methods for capturing storm waterin rural and urban settings to state-of-the-artwastewater treatment that allows reuse of water.We learned during our hearings about manymitigation measures aimed at water conservationduring our hearings, including testimony aboutthe “drought-proofing” value of installing ultra-low flow toilets in residences in southern Califor-nia. We note that attempts to repeal plumbingfixture standards, which are important to thesuccess of ultra-low flow toilet programs, orother long-term conservation standards in the1992 Energy Policy Act should be considered inthe larger context of the need for droughtpreparedness.

National Drought Mitigation Center

The National Drought MitigationCenter, established in 1995 at theUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln,helps people and institutionsdevelop and implement measuresto reduce society’s vulnerability todrought. The Center’s director, Dr.Don Wilhite, has estimated that onaverage 12% of the country is insevere drought each year. TheCenter emphasizes prevention andrisk management rather than crisismanagement. This approachpromotes self-reliance to achievegreater resilience to drought. TheCenter maintains a continuallygrowing archive of drought-

monitoring and planning informa-tion on its web site (http://enso.unl.edu/ndmc). That web sitealso contains products that havebeen developed with various federaland nonfederal partners andprovides links to other drought-related materials. Center staff havedeveloped several drought work-shops, both in the United Statesand internationally, in partnershipwith the Bureau of Reclamation andother co-sponsors. Federal andnonfederal drought professionalsserve as workshop leaders.We heard from people at our publichearings and in written comments

that the Center has beenhelpful in providing assistancewith drought planning, devisingproactive mitigation measures,and forming links with otherdrought professionals. Theactivities of the Center arefunded by an annual grant fromthe U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s Cooperative StateResearch, Education, andExtension Service as well as withsupplemental funding throughcooperative agreements withother federal entities or throughconsulting agreements withnonfederal entities.

We observed an example of state-of-the-arttechnology at the Scottsdale Water Campus inArizona and heard about other wastewatertreatment and reuse programs from witnessesduring our Los Angeles hearing. These types ofmeasures may be aimed specifically at reducingthe potential impacts of drought. Or, they maybe used to expand water supplies for growingpopulations, in which case the larger populationmay still need to plan proactive mitigation ofdrought impacts.

Within federal government programs, we foundthat water supply and droughts are consideredtogether. As one example, the Bureau ofReclamation’s 2001 budget includes significantamounts for water delivery projects that can helpreduce the impacts of drought. These include$65.3 million for the Central Valley Project inCalifornia, $33.7 million for the Central ArizonaProject, $29.7 million for the Mni Wiconi Projectin South Dakota, and $21.3 million for theGarrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota. Thebudget also contains requests of $22 million forwater reclamation and reuse and $2.2 million forthe Bureau’s small projects loan program. Inaddition, the Bureau’s water conservation pro-gram and guidance in the Bureau’s tiered pricing


Scottsdale,Arizona WaterCampus(wastewatertreatmentfacility).

handbook has helped several localities carry outwater conservation measures to reduce theirvulnerability to drought, including tiered pricingstrategies.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ total civilworks budget for Fiscal Year 2000 is $4 billion(plus $332 million from nonfederal and trustfund receipts). The budget includes $137.7million for general investigations, nearly $1.4billion for construction, and $1.9 billion foroperation and maintenance. The Corps ad-dresses drought as part of the hydrologic spec-trum in its design of projects, including environ-mental restoration projects, and in the operationof its existing projects. But the Corps has noauthority or funding specifically for droughtmitigation.

A number of programs within the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture provide assistance for actionsthat can lead to drought mitigation, althoughnone are specifically funded for this purpose. The1954 Small Watershed Act, for example, gavethe Department authority to help rural commu-nities address natural resource concerns in smallwatersheds (less than 250,000 acres in size).Eligible purposes include flood control, water-

shed management, water conservation, munici-pal and industrial water supply, recreation, andfish and wildlife protection. Although the pro-gram has broad authorities, a high percentage ofthe funding has gone to assist local communitiesin installing flood control measures. There iscurrently a backlog of requests for assistancetotaling nearly $1.4 billion. The annual appro-priation is approximately $100 million.

In 1964, Congress passed the Resources Conser-vation and Development Act to assist local unitsof government in addressing erosion problems,water management problems, and economicdevelopment needs. This program providestechnical and financial assistance, but availablefunding has been limited to technical assistancefor the approximately 2,500 local ResourceConservation and Development Councils. Theannual appropriation of about $36 millionprovides each Council with a coordinator posi-tion and clerical support.

The 1985 Food Security Act directed the Secre-tary of Agriculture to enroll 45 million acres ofhighly erodible lands into the ConservationReserve Program. This amount was reduced insubsequent farm bills to 36.4 million acres as a


cost-savings measure. Farmers receive technicaland financial assistance as well as an annualrental payment for installing and maintainingthis land in permanent vegetative cover.

In 1996, Congress consolidated several of theAgriculture Department’s cost-share programsand created the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram. The primary purpose of this program isto help farmers address their water qualityproblems. But it also provides technical andfinancial assistance for the installation of waterconservation measures as well as livestock water-ing facilities. Cost-share is provided throughlong-term agreements that address an entirefarm’s resource needs. At the Commission’shearing in Billings, Montana, however, witnessessaid that the procedures related to this programlimit their ability to obtain financial assistance toinstall proactive drought mitigation measuressuch as cross fencing and livestock wateringdevelopments.

We note that we did not develop specific recom-mendations for coordinating drought mitigationmeasures among the different levels of govern-ment. We believe that regional intergovernmen-tal groups must take responsibility for suchcoordination if it is to be effective and accepted.We do make recommendations, however, re-garding coordination of federal drought mitiga-

tion and other drought-related programs toincrease their effectiveness in assisting regional,state, local, and tribal drought planning andmitigation efforts.

Monitoring/prediction and Research. About22 federal programs have some responsibility fordrought monitoring/prediction and research. Inrelation to monitoring and prediction, theseinclude programs that focus on weather pat-terns, climate, soil conditions, and streamflowmeasurements. Examples are three networks—the Department of Agriculture’s Soil ClimateAnalysis Network (SCAN)/Snow TelemetryNetwork (SNOTEL), the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration/National WeatherService’s Cooperative Observer Network(COOP), and the U.S. Geological Survey’sstreamgaging and groundwater monitoringnetwork. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers bothuses and supports non-Corps federal monitoringsystems and has developed its own remote datasensing network to manage its reservoirs.

We heard, however, that such programs are notalways available in some areas such as on triballands and in remote rural areas. A case in point isthe U.S. Geological Survey’s streamgaging andgroundwater monitoring network. This findingechoes a conclusion reached by an external taskforce recently assigned to review the Survey’s

Shirley Gammon, MontanaState Conservationist forthe U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, at the Commission’shearing in Billings. Ms. Gammondescribed the Snowpack Tele-metry (SNOTEL) network inMontana, which consists of123 automated sites thatmeasure the amount of snowpack and the moisture contentof the snow. The Commissionheard that SNOTEL and othersystems such as the U.S. Geo-logical Survey’s streamgagingnetwork need to be expanded tocover tribal lands and remoterural areas.


Federal-State Cooperative Water Program. Thetask force’s report (1999) stated, “Current fund-ing for the Cooperative Water Program is notadequate to satisfy all of the needs identified foradditional streamflow data, regional groundwa-ter information, updated hydrologic needs andtechnical publications.”

Federal monitoring/prediction programs oftenjoin with universities, private institutions, andother nonfederal entities to provide informationneeded for effective drought preparedness andmitigation. For example, federal programsprovide the basic data used by private weatherservices and other enterprises that play a vitalrole in supporting farmers and others who arevulnerable to drought. The private weatherservices use the federally supplied data in de-tailed predictions that can be tailored to indi-vidual farmers and can cover varying time peri-ods as needed. Some private services are usingremote-sensing technology that can showfarmers areas of crop stress, allowing them tomake more efficient decisions about applyingfertilizers or irrigating. Such programs shouldhelp address the needs of farmers who told usthat they rely on irrigation systems and needdetailed, localized information (soil moisture,temperature, wind, humidity, evapotranspir-ation rates) for irrigation scheduling.

As the Western Drought Coordination Councilstated in its comments to the Commission, basicweather, water, soil moisture, mountain snowamount, and climate observations are the foun-dation of the monitoring and assessment activitythat alerts the nation to impending drought. Thecurrent federal interagency effort to indicatelikely drought trends two weeks ahead of timeon the drought-monitoring map is a start. Butwe heard that longer-term predictions wouldimprove services, including prediction maps ofdrought locations in the medium range (ten daysor two weeks) and one to two seasons in ad-vance. The Climate Prediction Center of theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion has begun producing Seasonal Drought

Outlook maps, which schematically display likelychanges in drought over the next two seasons.Proper use of this product, we were told, de-pends on a careful explanation of its limitations.

We also heard that the wealth of monitoring andprediction information produced by federalprograms and in conjunction with nonfederalpartners creates a problem for some users. Weheard that drought information and data areoften complex and, for the most part, are notcurrently presented in a standardized format.Such data can also be difficult to find and inter-pret. This is especially true for individuals, smallbusinesses, and some communities and tribesthat do not have ongoing relationships withdrought management agencies. Many witnessesat our hearings and written comments submittedindependently to the Commission indicated aneed for an accessible “gateway” (point ofcontact) where high-quality, standardized,comprehensible current information and histori-cal data are managed.

In relation to research, we found that this coun-try is blessed with a tremendous storehouse ofdrought-related scientific and technical know-how. Research programs of the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, the Depart-ment of Agriculture, the Department of theInterior, the Environmental Protection Agency,numerous universities, and private institutions—as well as work at the National Drought Mitiga-tion Center—form the basis of knowledgeneeded to monitor drought and address droughtimpacts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers isalso involved in drought-related research. Duringthe National Drought Study (1989-1993), forexample, the Corps sponsored research andexperiments in many aspects of drought.

However, we often heard that the results ofresearch are not always disseminated in a timelyfashion or through easily accessible modes, acriticism similar to that we received concerningmonitoring and prediction data and products.Research results as well as technology transfers,


we were told, are key to effective drought plan-ning, proactive mitigation, emergency response,and drought-related technical assistance andtraining and therefore must be made readily andwidely available.

Exchanges of information among planners anddecision-makers have helped determine thedirection of drought-related research, and shar-ing of findings among research entities hashelped promote many of the advances indrought-related research. The Commission heardthat there are various opportunities to expandsuch collaborative and cooperative activities. Wealso heard that research benefits greatly fromtrained, skilled people who have a deep andabiding interest in drought-related issues. Astechnology and knowledge evolve, so does theneed for a new generation of trained, skilled, andinterested individuals.

Insurance. It is evident from the information wereceived and assessments we conducted thateven the best preparedness and proactive miti-gation measures will not adequately addresssome drought-related risks. Small businessessuch as marinas and water-based recreationenterprises, for example, are vulnerable to theimpacts of drought. In addition, Main Streetenterprises that rely heavily on income fromagriculture or water-based recreation businessessuffer when those businesses lose income.

Insurance is one approach that individuals canchoose to take on their own. The Small BusinessAdministration noted that business interruptioninsurance is available in private insurance mar-kets. However, it is generally not tailored to theneeds of small businesses in drought situations.

The U.S. Departmentof Commerce, U.S.Department ofAgriculture, andNational DroughtMitigation Centerpublish a weekly,Drought Monitor onthe Internet, posted athttp://enso.unl.edu/monitor/monitor.html.The Monitor serves asan excellent exampleof a collaborativeeffort to pull togetherthe various sources ofweather data andcompile them in asingle, comprehensive,national report. Inaddition to the map,the Monitor includesa summary of recentsignificant weatheras well as forecastsof conditions thatcould affect droughtintensities inupcoming weeks.

April 11, 2000 Valid 7a.m. EST

U.S. Drought Monitor

D0 (A,F,W)-

D0 (A,F,W)-D1 (A,F,W)-

D0 (A,F)-

D1 (A,F)

D1 (A,F)

Map focuses on widespread drought.Local conditions may vary.

D0 Abnormally DryD1 Drought–First StageD2 Drought–SevereD3 Drought–ExtremeD4 Drought–ExceptionalDelineates Overlapping Areas

Drought type: used only when impacts differ

A = AgricultureW = WaterF = Wildfire danger

Plus (+) = Forecast to intensity next two weeksMinus (-) = Forcast to diminish next two weeksNo sign = No change in drought classification forecast


Small businesses may also lack access to informa-tion about the financial and business manage-ment strategies available to them.

Insurance has been a central feature of U.S.agricultural policy for decades. And while farmersand ranchers are also among the first to feel theimpacts of drought, the federal crop insuranceprogram, as noted earlier, covers only major fieldcrops, not all vegetable and other crops in alllocations or livestock.

A variety of strategies were offered for theCommission’s consideration. Some were varia-tions on the crop insurance program but withemphasis on self-help, extended coverage,resource stewardship, and preparedness. Manyhave been and are being discussed in a variety offorums, including the U.S. Congress. In-depthanalysis of these strategies would require muchmore time and many more resources than wereavailable to the Commission. We thereforeendorse none of the approaches but present thefollowing summary.

One approach called for incorporating allcrops and livestock into the crop insuranceprogram and for taking a “whole-farm”approach to insurance. That means lossesfrom one crop or one type of livestock couldbe offset by gains in a different crop or typeof livestock on the same farm.

Research at Work

Our analysis indicates that re-search has proved essential inseveral drought-related areas. Asexamples:• Research that identified

germplasm and dominantgenes in naturally occurringdrought-tolerant plants hasbenefitted the production ofnon-irrigated crops and foragesthat are totally dependent onrainfall.

• Research has identifiedcharacteristics of impactsresulting from changes in

weather patterns such as El Niño,La Niña, and the North AtlanticOscillation.

• Research has provided thetechnological base needed forlong-range weather predictionand the acquisition of improveddata on climate and weatherphenomena to improve theaccuracy of those predictions.

• Research provides informationneeded by individuals, communi-ties, states, and regions tofacilitate more efficient wateruse. It has been the impetus for

numerous technological im-provements in irrigation effi-ciency, desalination, wastewatertreatment, and household itemssuch as ultra-low flow toilets andhorizontal-axis clothes washersamong other technologies. InFlorida, more than 100 desalina-tion plants are in operation(Water International, December1999). Communities in Californiaare also using desalinationtechnology, as we learned at ourLos Angeles hearing.

Another approach discussed at theCommission’s hearings in Austin, Atlanta,and Billings would replace the current cropinsurance program with one based on thecost of production. Under this program, allcrops and livestock would be included on awhole-farm basis. The federal governmentwould subsidize premiums, but at differentrates than under the current program.Payments would be made when incomeis less than 90% of the documented costof production. Paid premiums would bemaintained in a national trust fund fordisbursement.

A third option was to base crop insurancepayments on the same criteria used to makedirect payments to farmers for resourceconservation measures under the Conserva-tion Security Program proposed in theAdministration’s 2001 budget. The objectiveis to recognize stewardship of farm andrange lands and water on farms and ranches,which are valuable assets in addition to thecrops and livestock raised on those lands.

In counties of Florida, Michigan, Massachu-setts, and several other states where farmersoften produce a variety of specialty crops, theDepartment of Agriculture is testing theAdjusted Gross Revenue model. This


insurance plan incorporates the whole-farmapproach and uses a farmer’s historicalSchedule F tax form information as a base toprovide guaranteed revenue during theperiod of insurance coverage. This modelprovides an insurance safety net for multipleagricultural commodities in one insurancepackage.

A different approach stems from the Austra-lian Drought Policy Review Task Force’sreport issued in 1990. The Task Force’s goalwas to achieve self-reliance among farmersand recommended that only in extremecircumstances—a one in 20- to 25-yeardrought event that lasts 12 months—wouldthe government provide aid in the form ofdebt subsidies and income support. Therespective roles for farmers and the govern-ment were clearly spelled out. Farmers wouldassume greater responsibility for managingrisks arising from climate variability while thegovernment would help create an overallenvironment conducive to this planning andrisk-management approach. The governmentwould increase funding for drought researchand training on drought risk managementand provide savings incentives and tax policy

changes. The Australian approach does notinclude provisions for government cropinsurance.

Relief. Many comments we received recognizedthe importance of moving away from the tradi-tional approach to drought that is driven byemergency relief to a new approach that empha-sizes planning and proactive mitigation. At thesame time, we were cautioned that it will taketime to provide the training and technical assis-tance needed to help farmers, ranchers, localbusinesses, communities, states, and tribes makethis transition. A safety net is needed, we weretold, to help overcome the impacts of extremeoccurrences of drought or the impacts of multi-faceted disasters (for example, flood/drought orhail/drought).

Approximately 47 federal programs have anelement of drought-related relief, primarily foragricultural droughts. The U.S. Department ofAgriculture, for example, follows a “bottom up”procedure for emergency disaster designations,but the Commission recognizes that the processneeds to be streamlined. In every county in thenation, there is a County Emergency Boardconsisting of a representative from each of thefive Department of Agriculture agencies that

Karen Neeley, GeneralCounsel for the IndependentBankers Association of Texas,suggested changes in thefederal crop insuranceprogram at the Commission’shearing in Austin, Texas.


normally have offices in the county. A similarstructure exists at the state level. When a stategovernor gets a request for a disaster designationrelated to agricultural issues, such as drought,the governor asks the Secretary of the Depart-ment of Agriculture to designate an administra-tive disaster. The Secretary sends the request tothe national office of the Farm Service Agency.From there, it goes back to the State EmergencyBoard, which works with the relevant CountyEmergency Board(s) to analyze the situation anddetermine whether or not conditions exist forthe disaster designation.

The Department of Agriculture also has severalongoing and ad hoc programs that providefinancial relief to farmers who have suffereddrought-related losses. The Emergency Conser-vation Program, the Emergency WatershedProgram, the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assis-tance Program, and the Federal Crop InsuranceProgram are examples. These and other emer-gency relief programs require congressionalaction and are dependent on the appropriationsprocess or emergency supplemental appropria-tions. The funding for drought, floods, andeconomic assistance approached $16 billion overthe past two years.

But many agricultural producers expressedconcerns about these types of responses. Forexample, a farmer who testified at theCommission’s hearing in Austin experienced asignificant drought during the summer of 1999.He finished harvest in August, but the FarmService Agency could not take his application forassistance until December. By February of 2000,assistance was still not available. During the1999 drought in the mid-Atlantic and southeast-ern states, the Department of Agriculture, underthe Secretarial disaster designation, could onlyprovide assistance through the EmergencyConservation Program and take loan applica-tions, pending congressional appropriations.Comments from the Agriculture Departmentnote that once appropriations are received, thetens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of

applications must then be processed withinexisting personnel constraints. For these reasons,assistance is often “too little and too late,” as weheard time and again at our public hearings.

Public witnesses at the Commission’s hearing inBillings said that documentation acceptable totrigger federal response for one Department ofAgriculture emergency program was not suffi-cient to trigger other Department emergencyprograms. They said that they often fail to get aclear understanding of what additional informa-tion is needed to meet program criteria and thatthis causes confusion for everyone, including theagency staff administering the program. Andwitnesses at several of the Commission’s hearingssaid that they were frustrated by theDepartment’s Emergency Conservation Program.That program can help them develop emergencylivestock watering facilities in times of dire need,but the program seldom provides timely assis-tance. This may be due in part to the fact thatthe program is funded by supplemental appro-priations from Congress after the fact.

Title I of Public Law 102-250 authorizes theBureau of Reclamation to provide emergencyresponse assistance, including emergency welldrilling. However, Title I is temporary, and theassistance it authorizes is available only withinthe 17 so-called “Reclamation” states in theWest. Title I is the only federal law that author-izes water deliveries “from Federal Reclamationprojects and non-project water...on a non-reimbursable basis for the purposes of protectingor restoring fish and wildlife resources.” PublicLaw 102-250 is also the basis for the Bureau’sdrought planning and education assistance. Allof these activities must therefore share the fundsfor this program.

Public Law 95-51 provides the Secretary of theArmy authority under certain conditions toconstruct wells and transport water to farmers,ranchers, and political subdivisions within areasthat the Assistant Secretary of the Army for CivilWorks determines to be drought distressed. Anyfarmer, rancher, or political subdivision within a


distressed area may submit a written request forassistance. But Corps assistance is consideredonly when nonfederal interests have exhaustedreasonable means for securing necessary watersupplies (within the limits of their financialresources), including assistance from otherfederal agencies. And Corps assistance is alwaysconsidered to be supplemental to state and localefforts. For example, Corps assistance is not usedto provide drought emergency water where alivestock owner has other options such as loans,selling all or part of a herd even at deflatedprices, and relocating animals to an area wherewater is available. As another example, Corpsassistance can be provided to construct wells,but the Corps’ costs for construction must berepaid. In addition, Corps assistance can beprovided to transport water for consumption.The Corps covers the cost of transporting thewater, but the cost of purchasing and storing thewater is the nonfederal interest’s responsibility.This water-hauling program, which seems tooffer assistance at first glance, is actually a pro-gram of last resort under the current law, withvery restrictive eligibility criteria.

The 1966 Flood Control Act allows the Corps tocontract with states, municipalities, privateentities, or individuals for surplus water that maybe available in any reservoir under the control ofthe Department of the Army. Withdrawals are fordomestic and industrial uses. The preferredapproach in providing such surplus water is for astate or subdivision of a state to enter into acontract with the Secretary of the Army andagree to act as wholesaler for all of the waterrequirements of individual users. This places thestate or local government in a position to helptheir citizens during difficult times and minimizesthe potential for problems that could arise if theSecretary of the Army had to determine who isentitled to shares of surplus water based onassessments of local needs. All such withdrawalsrequire a fee for the service provided, even in thecase of a declared national disaster area.

The Stafford Act and its implementation by theFederal Emergency Management Agency is aneffective, proven model for organizing andproviding emergency assistance during mostcatastrophic natural disasters. One of the factorsthat makes this program successful is that theAgency can draw monies from an annual appro-priated fund to pay for disaster assistance. TheAgency can provide disaster unemploymentassistance, truck in water, and assist in replacingor building infrastructure such as wells or pipe-lines for water transfers. The Stafford Actauthorizes only measures to protect health andsafety, however, and has rarely been used torespond to drought-caused emergencies. Inaddition, it takes a presidential declaration ofdisaster before Stafford Act authority can beactivated. Not all drought events will be declareddisasters at the presidential level, although theymay well have adverse impacts.

Need to CoordinateDrought-related ProgramsAs shown in much of the preceding discussion,the array of state, federal, and other drought-related programs can be intimidating and frus-trating for those who would like access to theservices the programs offer, but who do not dealwith government agencies on a regular basis. Atanother level, the multitude of federal programscan also cause problems for state, county, andtribal governments that may be very used togovernmental transactions but still have to dealindividually with separate federal agencies forany number of drought-related issues.

Service delivery networks exist for manydrought-related programs at all levels of govern-ment. However, we heard that they are not wellintegrated, and the people who need informa-tion about the programs are not always wellserved. People told us there is no central point ofcontact concerning all federal programs and thateven within the same federal department, theremay be many drought-related programs and nosingle contact point to advise people about what


they may qualify for or how to access the pro-grams. We also heard that the delivery time forassistance in many cases is unsatisfactory, partlybecause there is little coordination of programs.

The Western Drought Coordination Councilstrongly suggested establishing a federal droughtcoordinating body. The law that created thisCommission indicated a need to develop aneffective coordinated federal approach todrought mitigation and response. The lawrequired us to determine if all federal droughtprograms should be consolidated under oneentity.

In arriving at our recommendations, we consid-ered the consolidation option and concluded itwould be impractical and ineffective. Droughtaffects a wide array of constituents—amongthem farmers, ranchers, non-farm businesses,tribes, water districts, municipalities, and indus-try—as well as the environment. The federalexpertise required to address the needs of theseconstituents and the impacts of drought on theenvironment resides in many agencies. Thefederal agencies currently involved in droughtprograms report to multiple congressionalauthorizing and appropriating committees,making it difficult to restructure these authoritiesin a timely manner.

We also considered three other options. The firstwas a National Drought Council similar in

composition to the National Drought PolicyCommission, but that also includes a representa-tive from the U.S. Department of Energy, arepresentative from the Environmental Protec-tion Agency, and a nonfederal, nongovernmentenvironmental representative. The second optionwas a presidentially created federal droughtcoordination body comprised of only federalrepresentatives from the appropriate federalagencies. This entity would be directed to coor-dinate with state and local governments, tribes,regional drought-related entities, and the privatesector in carrying out its duties. The third optionwas to build on existing, less formal models suchas the Resource Conservation and DevelopmentCouncils or the Association of State Dam SafetyOfficials.

In the end, we agreed that coordination wouldbe more effective if nonfederal participation wereexplicitly established (see Recommendation 5.1).

Need for Public EducationWe heard often during our deliberations that akey element in successful drought preparednessis public education. Many people are madeaware of the need for water conservation andother measures during drought. But oncedrought is over, old habits tend to dominate.

Most examples of successful public educationcampaigns presented during our hearings

California Urban Water Conservation Council—14 Best Management Practices1. Indoor and outdoor home water use survey.2. Residential plumbing retrofit (low cost: faucet

aerators, shower heads, toilet dams, etc.).3. Water utility system audits; leak detection and

repair.4. Metering with commodity rates.5. Large landscape conservation incentives (irriga-

tion meters, etc.).6. High-efficiency washing machine rebates (hori-

zontal axis).7. Public information programs.8. School education programs.

9. Commercial/industrial/institutional water usesurvey.

10. Wholesale water agency financial/technicalassistance to small retail agencies.

11. Conservation pricing—more water used, higherthe price.

12. Water Conservation Coordinator.13. Water waste prohibition (do not allow gutter

flooding, non-recycling water fountains, etc.).14. Residential Ultra-Low Flow Toilet Replacement

Program (rebates, installation, etc.).


stemmed from local and state governmentalactivity or from private and nongovernmentalentities. As an example, the California UrbanWater Conservation Council identified 14 bestmanagement practices, three of which relate toeducation, public awareness, and communica-tions. One calls for organizations to identify a“water conservation coordinator” as a singlecontact point for information. Two others call fordevelopment and implementation of coordi-nated public and school education programs.Included in the education programs are work-shops, newsletters, public service announce-ments, press releases, town hall meetings, schoolcurricula, bill stuffers for utilities, and interactiveparticipatory decision-making processes. Thesetechniques and others provide communicationlinks among organizations that provide assis-tance and the people whom they serve. Suchtechniques also help increase awareness of thevalue of preparedness to reduce costly impacts ofdroughts.

There is little federal assistance available for suchprograms, but there are a few examples offederal public education efforts related todrought. One is the National Weather Service’srecent addition of drought concerns to its annualspring media briefings on the water supplyoutlook. For the March 13, 2000, presentation,the Weather Service prepared a public documentto emphasize the importance of preparing fordrought. In addition, the Weather Service pro-duced maps to show current drought areasnationwide as well as seasonal drought outlooksand provided a list of drought informationsources.

On another front, the National Disaster Educa-tion Coalition, a group of public and privateorganizations that provides educational materialsand information on natural hazards, met inFebruary 2000 to discuss a plan for incorporatingdrought into its ongoing efforts.

We were cautioned, however, that there is aneed to include the media in public educationoutreach. Widespread but misinformed drought

alerts can do damage to state or regional tourismand recreation economies when the actualimpacts may be confined to a small portion ofthe state or region.

Need to AddressEnvironmental Concerns

As many people testified during our hearings orthrough written comments, drought can havedevastating impacts on aquatic and terrestrialenvironmental resources, as well as on humanusers of water. Aquatic ecosystems are excep-tionally vulnerable to the effects of droughtconditions, manifested as reductions instreamflows, and populations of terrestrialwildlife are placed under stress when severedrought conditions develop. Habitat quality andquantity gradually decline from lack of moisture,increasing the competition for limited resources.Wildlife species eventually suffer from lack ofdrinking water, forage, and cover and from heatstress. We heard that the biotic impacts ofdrought are particularly acute for threatened,endangered, and sensitive species of fish andwildlife that are characteristically found in lowpopulation densities. In many cases, such specieshave already encountered damage to or destruc-tion of their natural environments because offactors such as suburban sprawl, conversion ofland to agricultural or industrial uses, and con-struction of large dams or other impoundments.

Environmentalresources often receive

inadequate attention duringdrought emergencies and

in drought planning,not so much because

of lack of concernbut because of lack

of expertise in this arena,lack of adequate financialresources, and sometimes

lack of awareness.


We heard that in areas where large quantitiesof water are stored behind dams, the damssegment rivers and thus impede the movementof fish and change the pattern of sedimentdeposition. Dams also allow the regulation ofriver flows, and the preference is generally formoderate flows with no floods and no low flows.Riverine ecosystems that evolved before thedams were built and the life they sustain may beeliminated. The most common examples areanadromous fish that can no longer navigate theriver and riverine species whose food cycledepends on the frequent flooding of riverbanks.But dams also eliminate some of the effects ofsevere droughts, so species that could notsurvive as well in the natural hydrologic cyclemay now prosper. New species, welcome andunwelcome, may be introduced. Reservoirs oftensupport popular game fish that would not havebeen found in the natural river.

Drought also has repercussions on the morphol-ogy and hydrologic function of stream channelnetworks and on the chemistry and water qualityof streams and lakes. On land, it can lead tomajor episodes of tree mortality, initiate out-breaks of insects and disease in forests, and limitan ecosystem’s productivity and ability to cycleessential elements.

Witnesses noted that environmental resourcesoften receive inadequate attention duringdrought emergencies and in drought planning,not so much because of lack of concern butbecause of lack of expertise in this arena, lack ofadequate financial resources, and sometimes lackof awareness. Drought planners may fail todetermine which drought-related environmentalimpacts can be tolerated and which cannot and

therefore would benefit from appropriatedrought impact-reduction measures. Largerquestions also remain to be answered, includingthe degree to which humans should try toeliminate the effect of drought on the environ-ment if drought is a natural part of the environ-mental cycle.

Additional concerns center on use of water forhumans and the environment, including ad-equate stream flows for wildlife species, anddetermination of preferences when one speciescompetes with another for water. Some peoplesuggested that during drought, environmentalregulations—ranging from those concerningwildlife and wildlife habitat to those related tosafe drinking water—should be more flexible. Onthe other hand, we heard that droughts are thevery times when enforcement of such regulationsis essential to protect environmental resources,including drinking water supplies, that arealready stressed from factors not related todrought. We heard too that addressing environ-mental concerns in relation to drought mightbest be accomplished in the context of ecosys-tem management and restoration and as part ofplanning for watersheds or river basins becausemany of these concerns extend across human-drawn boundaries and borders.

The Commission appreciates the complexities ofthese issues. As the Western Water Policy ReviewAdvisory Commission stated in its June 1998report, “Today, there are a number of federal,state, tribal and local agencies with competinginterests and missions related to water, but nonewith a sufficient political or legal mandate tooverride the concerns of the others. This meansthat implementing any proposal, for almost any

When drought hits arid farmlandor fast-growing urban/suburbanregions, it can heighten tensionsover water use. This was the topicof lead stories on the March 13,2000, CBS and ABC prime-timenewscasts, which focused on

questions about who should getwater and for what purpose in theSoutheast and drought-strickenTexas. A few days earlier on March9, the Seattle Post-Intelligencerreported on conflicts between theCity of Seattle and King County

over the county’s attempts toinvolve all municipal jurisdictionsin the county—including Seattle—in development of a regionalwater resources plan that includesconsiderations for salmon runs.


purpose, requires working through a compli-cated web of laws, regulations, and constituen-cies.” The report cited the CALFED program inthe San Francisco Bay-Delta region of Californiaas a model for resolving complex water disputes,noting that the program brought togetherrepresentatives of agricultural, business, environ-mental, and urban concerns “to guarantee morereliable water supplies and improved waterquality for the environment, cities, and farms.”

The Western Governors’ Association, the Na-tional Governors’ Association, and the NationalAssociation of Counties have adopted a set ofprinciples to guide their environmental manage-ment efforts. Called “Enlibra,” the principlesform the basis of a shared doctrine that “speaksto greater participation and collaboration indecision making, focuses on outcomes ratherthan just programs, and recognizes the need fora variety of tools beyond regulation that willimprove environmental and natural resourcemanagement” (www.westgov.org).

We are encouraged by these and other examplesthat incorporate a broad array of environmentalimpacts and concerns into their processes to giveinterested parties a chance to reduce conflicts.We caution that in relation to drought, somepreparedness and proactive mitigation measuresmay in and of themselves create unacceptableimpacts on the environment. For this reason, it isdoubly important that environmental resourceissues be included in drought preparednessefforts.

Need to AddressDrought-related Wildfires

We heard that drought events often give rise toincreased risk of widespread wildfires. In turn,wildfires can exacerbate the environmentalimpacts of drought by consuming vegetationalready stressed from drought, by burningprotective streamside vegetation, and in severe-intensity fires by changing soil composition andproperties. We were told, too, that in areas

where drought occurrences are rare, people areoften unprepared for wildfire. Even areas wheredrought is more common may lack sufficientresources for combating wildfire. Witnesses fromOklahoma and Texas told us during our hearingin Austin that they rely primarily on volunteer firefighters to control drought-related wildfire andthat they are in need of equipment and trainingto do a better job and help ensure the safety ofthe fire fighters. In written comments, NewMexico’s state forestry division noted that accu-rate weather predictions are important to firemanagers for safety reasons. The comments alsosaid that the Palmer Drought Index, with itsemphasis on soil moisture, is not sufficient togive fire managers the information they needabout fuel moisture, a statement that wasechoed in other comments we received.

A 1996 report of the Western Governors’ Asso-ciation identified three major obstacles in sup-pression of drought-related wildfires:

the financial burdens to prepare for and fightthe fires,

a lack of proper training and resources, and

restoring forest and grassland health.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture ForestService is authorized by the Cooperative ForestryAssistance Act of 1978 to cooperate with statesin developing systems and methods for preven-tion, control, suppression, and prescribed use offires in rural areas. The goal is to protect humanlives, agricultural crops and livestock, propertyand other improvements, and natural resources.The Forest Service’s Fire Sciences Laboratory hasdeveloped many tools to address fire danger andfire behavior potential at national and locallevels. One tool to display broad-scale elementsof fire danger is the Wildland Fire AssessmentSystem, which is available on the Internet.

The Federal Emergency Management Agencyemphasized that wildfire is part of the wildland/urban interface—no longer a phenomenonconcentrated primarily in large national forests


Wildfire risks maywell increase withdrought—alongthe suburban/rural interface aswell as onwildlands.

and parks or on vast expanses of agriculturalland. The Agency noted that the number ofrequests it received from states for assistancewith wildfire increased from an average of five toseven a year during most of the 1980s to 122 in1998.

We learned also that the Resource Conservationand Development Councils across the countryare encouraging and assisting in the installationof “dry hydrants.” These relatively inexpensivestructures allow fire trucks to load waterfrom ponds on cooperating farms duringemergencies.

Need for Training andTechnical AssistancePlanning provides opportunities for the generalpublic to become involved and invested indrought-related decisions—for example, adopt-ing water conservation measures year round.Planning also gives people a chance to learnmore about drought, leading to greater self-reliance and self-determination. And planningemphasizes local solutions based on consider-ation of all affected entities and related issues,including legal, economic, geographic, climate,

religious, and cultural differences; fairness andequity; and environmental concerns. Theseopportunities are lost where people are notsufficiently trained to engage in drought plan-ning or lack adequate technical assistance to doso.

Hands-on training and technical assistanceprograms can help people formulate and imple-ment plans to mitigate human and environmen-tal impacts. Such programs can help farmersdecide whether to include drought-resistantcrops, on-farm wells, crop insurance, conserva-tion systems, restoration of wetlands and wildlifehabitat, and other important factors into theirrisk-management strategies. They can helpfarmers install water management practices andgain a basic understanding of the soils andclimate conditions in their areas and the types ofcrops and plants suitable to those sometimeschanging conditions. Such assistance can alsohelp them understand complicated marketingoptions and other methods to manage risks.

Training and technical assistance programs canhelp communities as they determine their ownpriorities for incorporating drought concerns andthe need to protect environmental resources into


ongoing community planning and comprehen-sive water management plans aimed at ensuringsafe, adequate drinking water (urban and rural)as well as water needed to fight fires. They canhelp drought planners decide whether theywould benefit from simulated drought-responseexercises like those conducted by the ArmyCorps of Engineers.

We often heard that local governments knowtheir situations related to impending droughtbetter than anyone else. We were told thatcooperation and assistance from states and thefederal government through incentives, funding,and technical assistance in drought planningwould go far to help small communities andrural water systems prepare better for drought.We learned that technical assistance and trainingwould be helpful as people gather drought-related information, devise drought impact-reduction strategies, and prepare public educa-tion and involvement campaigns to developlocally appropriate solutions. State climatologistsand researchers in university drought-relatedprograms, as well as federal experts, are poten-tial sources for training assistance. In addition,federal and state agencies often have had experi-ence with the types of emergencies that canoccur and what measures were taken to respondto the emergencies. Examples of such measuresare standard operating procedures for layingemergency pipelines, trucking water, or identify-ing ponds in the areas where fire fighters canobtain water to fight wildfires.

Experts and members of the public also advisedus that we should make greater use of innovativewater supply techniques. We saw practicalapplications such as the Scottsdale system fortreating wastewater and injecting it into theground for later use. But we were unable to findan authoritative guide that documents thearguments for and against the full range of“water-creating” methods such as desalinationand cloud seeding. Without such information, itis less likely that water managers will fully con-sider these options. Even if the managers want to

learn more, they are on their own to study theliterature, which currently includes a great dealabout water-making methods but little about thecosts and impacts of these methods.

Need to Address InternationalDrought-related Issues

Because drought is a worldwide phenomenon,the United States has the opportunity to sharedrought experience and expertise with othercountries and to learn from them. We heardfrom federal agency personnel that severalinformation-sharing projects are underwaythrough the United Nations and other entities.

In the arena of water supplies, the border be-tween the U.S. and Canada cuts across naturaldrainage basins. Thus, the actions of one countrycan affect the other, and the impacts of droughtcan cross the border. Although drought is aserious issue in the Columbia River and GreatLakes basins, the two countries have strongworking relationships on these issues. For ex-ample, droughts can lower the levels of theGreat Lakes and thereby reduce hydropowergeneration, increase shipping costs, and makethe lakes less accessible to recreational boaters.The primary response is to dredge more and toextend boat ramps.

The International Boundary and Water Commis-sion monitors allocation of water from theColorado and Rio Grande rivers between theUnited States and Mexico. We heard that Mexicocurrently owes the United States water from theRio Grande, but has not provided it. We alsoheard from witnesses during our hearings in ElPaso and Austin that this has had negativeimpacts on the drought-stricken lower RioGrande section of Texas. The witnesses told usthat there is a need for watershed planning ofthe entire river basin, which is located in boththe United States and Mexico.


CONCLUSIONSFrom the preceding findings, we drew thefollowing conclusions:

The United States would benefit from devel-opment of national drought policy withpreparedness as its core.

Preparedness measures, particularly compre-hensive drought planning and proactivemitigation measures, can lessen the impactof drought on individuals, communities, andthe environment. They can also reduce theneed for future emergency financial andother relief.

Effective drought plans should have clearlyidentified objectives and performance stan-dards and a clear exposition of the vulner-ability of a region to drought, given currentand expected water resources infrastructureand water uses. They should be flexible toavoid a “one size fits all” approach and allowfor social, cultural, and religious differences.For both urban and rural communities, theyshould consider the location of alternate orsupplemental sources of water, how thiswater can be conveyed to the point of need,and whether additional treatment is needed.They should also be based on cost andperformance.

Effective plans should evaluate droughtprograms to determine whether they identifyand address priority environmental impactsand improve proactive mitigation ofdrought’s impacts on the environmentthrough training, incentives, technical assis-tance, research, and public education. Effec-tive plans should consider the allocation ofwater to meet the need to protect the envi-ronment and to meet immediate humanneeds.

The people and entities that are likely toreceive the greatest share of federal emer-gency assistance because of drought oftenhave the fewest personnel, information, and

financial resources to prepare for and reducethe potential impacts of drought.

Individuals, businesses, local/county/stategovernments, tribes, and nongovernmentalorganizations with an interest in or responsi-bilities for drought management wouldbenefit from training and technical assistanceto plan for and reduce the impacts ofdrought.

There are a number of success stories indrought preparedness and proactive mitiga-tion at the individual, local, state, regional,and federal levels that would make excellentmodels for use in training and technicalassistance. Among those cited in this reportare the nonprofit TreePeople’s “SecondNature” program in Los Angeles, the Metro-politan Water District of Southern California’s“Integrated Resource” and “Water Surplusand Demand Management” plans,Kentucky’s drought management plan, theGeorgia Water Management Campaign, theU.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Drought Pro-gram, the Army Corps of Engineers’ simu-lated drought exercises, and the small water-sheds assistance offered by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture

Partnerships among nonfederal govern-ments, the federal government, and privateinterests can go far in developing the toolsand strategies for formulating and carryingout appropriate drought preparednessstrategies.

Proactive mitigation activities such as waterconservation, science-based forest manage-ment, reuse of wastewater, desalination,pricing strategies, and the identification ofback-up water supplies—when initiatedbefore an emergency—can reduce vulner-ability to drought events.

In some parts of the country, there is insuffi-cient area coverage or recorded history forstream gage and climate data.


Drought-related data can be better mar-shaled, interpreted, and disseminated to allparties with an interest in drought, includingthe media and public at large, so that citizensand experts in drought management alikecan gain the knowledge they need to helplessen the impacts of drought.

Drought-related research is the foundation ofmany drought programs and is critical in theproduction of high-quality innovations andtechnology that lead to improved droughtpreparedness.

Even the best preparedness measures maynot sufficiently reduce many risks associatedwith drought nor eliminate the need foremergency relief during severe droughts.

There is considerable sentiment amongfarmers, ranchers, and tribes to make theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s crop insur-ance more responsive to their needs byextending coverage to include all crops andlivestock.

Disaster declarations are much less commonfor severe urban droughts than for agricul-tural droughts. Like agricultural droughts,however, they will occur despite the bestpreparedness measures.

Federal drought-related programs lack acoordinated approach so that delivery ofprogram services is less efficient, effective,and timely than it could be. The U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture and other federal agen-cies involved in assisting people with droughtactivities need to improve their internal andexternal coordination practices to provideservices more appropriately and expediently.

Some federal drought-related programs areneither authorized nor funded at the levelneeded to deliver effective services. Further-more, their eligibility criteria and cost-sharingrequirements may restrict participation bytribes, farmers and ranchers, and others whomay have limited resources.


RECOMMENDATIONS

Policy Statement

The Commission believes that national droughtpolicy should use the resources of the federalgovernment to support but not supplant norinterfere with state, tribal, regional, local, andindividual efforts to reduce drought impacts. Theguiding principles of national drought policyshould be:

Favor preparedness over insurance, insuranceover relief, and incentives over regulation.

Set research priorities based on the potentialof the research results to reduce droughtimpacts.

Coordinate the delivery of federal servicesthrough cooperation and collaboration withnonfederal entities.

This policy requires a shift from the currentemphasis on drought relief. It means we mustadopt a forward-looking stance to reduce thisnation’s vulnerability to the impacts of drought.Preparedness—especially drought planning, planimplementation, and proactive mitigation—mustbecome the cornerstone of national droughtpolicy. This basic concept was the conclusionreached by the Senate Task Force on FundingDisaster Relief in March 1995, among otherentities. It was universally supported within theCommission and by the overwhelming majorityof people who commented on the draft versionof this report.

We recommend that Congress pass a NationalDrought Preparedness Act, which would estab-lish a nonfederal/federal partnership through aNational Drought Council as described in Rec-ommendation 5.1. The primary function of theCouncil is to ensure that the goals of nationaldrought policy are achieved. The goals are:

1. Incorporate planning, implementation ofplans and proactive mitigation measures, riskmanagement, resource stewardship, environ-

mental considerations, and public educationas the key elements of effective nationaldrought policy.

2. Improve collaboration among scientists andmanagers to enhance the effectiveness ofobservation networks, monitoring, predic-tion, information delivery, and appliedresearch and to foster public understandingof and preparedness for drought.

3. Develop and incorporate comprehensiveinsurance and financial strategies intodrought preparedness plans.

4. Maintain a safety net of emergency relief thatemphasizes sound stewardship of naturalresources and self-help.

5. Coordinate drought programs and responseeffectively, efficiently, and in a customer-oriented manner.

GOAL 1

Incorporate planning, implementation ofplans and proactive mitigation measures,risk management, resource stewardship,environmental considerations, and publiceducation as the key elements of effectivenational drought policy.

In accordance with the law that established theNational Drought Policy Commission, westrongly endorse preparedness as a key elementto reduce the impacts of drought on individuals,communities, and the environment. We heardconvincing testimony and reviewed expertanalyses that led us to conclude most levels ofgovernment and most of the private sector arenot adequately prepared for drought. We believethat coordinated drought preparedness pro-grams will lessen the need for future emergencyfinancial and other assistance. Basic componentsof preparedness include long-term planning,implementation of proactive mitigation mea-sures, risk management, resource stewardship,environmental considerations, and public educa-tion.


Common Components of Comprehensive Water Management/Drought Planning• Analysis of past, current and

projected water demand,instream flow needs for appro-priate ecosystem protection,water availability, and (fromthese) potential water short-ages.

• The basis for the design andperformance of the plan,including the economic,environmental, social, andcultural goals and objectives ofdecision makers and the publicat large and performancemetrics derived from thoseobjectives.

• Description of how shortageswould be met (for example,planting of drought-resistantspecies, temporary fallowing ofland, increased supply, leakdetection/elimination, water useefficiency, demand manage-ment) and an estimate of associ-ated costs.

• Description of interagency/intergovernmental coordinationand public participation.

• Appropriate mitigation ofdrought impacts on the environ-ment.

• Monitoring and predictionstrategies.

• Methods for testing the plans.• Mechanisms for updating the

plans.• A decision-making body to

oversee and implement theplans.

The Commission encouragesdrought planning as a continuingprocess and part of more compre-hensive water managementprograms.

Specific Recommendations

1.1 Congress should adequately fund existingdrought preparedness programs such as theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conserva-tion Technical Assistance Program (PublicLaw 46) and Environmental Quality Incen-tives Program (16 U.S.C. 3839) and theBureau of Reclamation’s drought planningprogram (Public Law 102-250, Title II).

1.2 The President should direct the Bureau ofReclamation and the Army Corps of Engi-neers to find an effective way to meet thedrought planning needs of those areas nottraditionally served by the Bureau of Recla-mation. Congress should fund these agen-cies’ efforts to better serve the needs of theeastern part of the country.

1.3 The President should direct all appropriatefederal agencies to cooperate fully and toprovide all assistance possible to encouragedevelopment or revision and implementa-tion of comprehensive drought prepared-ness plans by states, localities, tribes, re-gional entities such as watershed and riverbasin organizations, and the private sector.Federal agencies that provide droughtplanning assistance should consider theelements shown in the box below.

1.4 Federal agencies providing drought plan-ning assistance should encourage state,local, regional and tribal planners to use oradapt existing planning materials andresources. These include materials developedby the National Drought Mitigation Center,the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.Department of Agriculture, the WesternDrought Coordination Council, the states,and urban and rural water districts.

1.5 The President should direct all appropriatefederal agencies to develop and implementdrought management plans for federalfacilities such as military bases, federalprisons, and large federal office complexes inthe United States. These plans should becoordinated with local and state droughtplanning and mitigation measures.

1.6 The President should direct all appropriatefederal agencies to study their programs forpotential impacts on drought. Where suchpotential exists, the agencies need to inte-grate national drought policy into theirprograms.

1.7 The President should direct federal agencieswith water resources management programsto develop and promote comprehensivepublic awareness efforts as part of an ongo-ing drought preparedness strategy.


GOAL 2

Improve collaboration among scientistsand managers to enhance the effective-ness of observation networks, monitoring,prediction, information delivery, andapplied research and to foster publicunderstanding of and preparedness fordrought.

Our findings and conclusions point out the valueof observation networks, monitoring, prediction,information gateways and delivery, and researchto drought preparedness. The National DroughtCouncil (see Recommendation 5.1) will coordi-nate a formal process—such as a drought datamonitoring, prediction, and research “summit”of multi-disciplinary, geographically diverserepresentatives—to ascertain the needs andexpectations of all interested parties as a firststep toward prioritizing recommendations.Research priorities should address the impacts ofdrought on non-irrigated systems, aquaticecosystems, wildlife, and other aspects of thenatural environment, including the potentialnegative impacts of drought mitigation mea-sures. Better coordination of governments andprivate entities in international drought monitor-ing, prediction, research, education, waterconservation, and technology transfer is essen-tial. The National Drought Council’s annual

Sample Public Awareness Activities

• Public involvement before,during, and after the develop-ment of drought preparednessplans: The planning entityshould seek broad communityinput and support for theplanning effort. Participationshould be actively solicitedfrom a full spectrum of thelocal population—all agegroups, all cultural and ethnicgroups, and all economiclevels.

• Public information: The publicneeds to have access to under-standable, informative materialson all aspects of drought.Examples of such materialsinclude: explanations of thecauses of drought, its impacts,and the damage it causes;descriptions of the value andbenefits of sound land steward-ship to reduce the impacts ofdrought and protect the environ-ment; clear instructions forappropriate responses to

drought (water conservation,water reuse, and leak detec-tion/elimination amongothers); and requirements oflocal ordinances or state lawduring droughts. This informa-tion should be provided in asmany locations and as manyformats as possible, includingprinted booklets or brochures,telephone hotlines, publicservice announcements, mediaevents, computer web pages,and classroom presentations.

reports will include a description of the informa-tion products most needed to reduce droughtimpacts (see Recommendation 5.4).

Better coordinationof governments and

private entities ininternational drought

monitoring, prediction,research, education, water

conservation, andtechnology transfer

is essential.


2.1 The President should appropriately directand Congress, as necessary, should authorizeand fund a viable plan to maintain, modern-ize, expand, and coordinate a system ofobservation networks that meets the needsof the public at large. The plan shouldinclude cooperation with states, develop-ment and improvement of baseline historicaldata sets, and recognition of the recommen-dations made by the National DroughtCouncil. Priority should be placed on fillingthe gaps on tribal lands and in ruralAmerica. Examples of critical observationnetworks are in the box on the next page.


2.2 The President should appropriately directand Congress, as necessary, should authorizeand fund continuation of the U.S. DroughtMonitor and exploration of opportunities forits improvement and expansion.

2.3 The President should appropriately directand Congress, as necessary, should authorizeand fund continuation of Drought Predic-tions/Outlooks and development of tech-niques to improve their accuracy and fre-quency.

2.4 The President should appropriately directand Congress, as necessary, should authorizeand fund a comprehensive informationgateway (possibly through expansion of theNational Drought Mitigation Center’swebsite or other similar approaches) toprovide users with free and open access toobservational network data and droughtmonitoring, prediction, impact, assessment,preparedness, and mitigation measures.Links among federal and nonfederal sourcesare critical.

2.5 The President should direct the appropriatefederal agencies to develop an effectivedrought information delivery system such asthe Unified Climate Access Network (UCAN)to communicate drought conditions andimpacts to decision makers at the federal,

Examples of Critical ObservationNetworks

• Department of Commerce, National WeatherService, Cooperative Observer (COOP)Program Hydrometeorological Network

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ClimateAnalysis (SCAN) and Snowpack Telemetry(SNOTEL) networks

• U.S. Forest Service, Remote AutomatedWeather Station (RAWS) Network

• U.S. Geological Survey, Streamgaging andGroundwater Network

• Other regional observation networks

regional, state, tribal, and local levels and tothe private sector and general public. Thesystems should include near real-time data,information and products developed at eachof these levels and integrated in an appropri-ate fashion to accurately reflect regional andstate differences in drought conditions. Thebox below indicates some of the criticalparticipants in such a delivery system.

2.6 The President should direct appropriatefederal agencies to expand technologytransfer of water conservation strategies andinnovative water supply techniques as partof drought preparedness programs.

2.7 The President should direct and Congressshould continue to adequately fund existingand future drought-related research. Existingcompetitive research grant programs shouldgive high priority to drought. Areas ofresearch should include topics that willeither conserve water or make more wateravailable for needs during drought. Ex-amples include alternative methods such asbrush control, cloud seeding, canal lining,and desalination.

2.8 The President should direct and Congressshould fund completion of the soil survey onall lands, with special and immediate em-phasis on tribal lands.

Selected Critical Participants in anEffective Drought InformationDelivery System

• Climate Prediction Center• National Climatic Data Center• Regional Climate Centers• U.S. Department of Agriculture• U.S. Geological Survey• National Drought Mitigation Center• State Climatologists• Other regional climate centers• Other water systems• International partners


GOAL 3

Develop and incorporate comprehensiveinsurance and financial strategies intodrought preparedness plans.

We firmly believe that preparedness measureswill go far to reduce this country’s vulnerabilityto drought. But we also recognize that pro-longed drought causes risks that the best pre-paredness measures may not adequately address.The most significant approach to such risks inrecent years is the federal government’s cropinsurance program for farmers. As we heard,however, that program does not cover all cropsnor does it cover livestock. In addition, paymentsfrom the program are often “too little, too late”and are administered differently across thecountry. There is no similar program for otherswho are at particular risk from drought. Assis-tance must be pieced together from varioussources or is simply not available. Time andagain, the federal government is asked to appro-priate emergency relief that costs at least $500million a year on average.

We had neither the expertise nor the resourcesto investigate thoroughly the various options toimprove the crop insurance program or theother proposals that were presented during ourdeliberations and that Congress has grappled

with for many years. Still, we are convinced thatsound insurance and financial strategies areessential if the country is to move away fromrelying on emergency relief in response towidespread drought.

Specific Recommendations3.1 We recommend that Congress authorize and

fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture toevaluate different approaches to crop insur-ance, including a cost of production plan.The evaluation should assess whether theapproaches are practicable and prudent forall farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholdersin all regions of the country and whetherthey set standards that encourage efficientwater use.

3.2 We recommend that the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, in cooperation with state andlocal governments and the private sector,expand training to rural communities,farmers, and ranchers across the country onvarious financial strategies.

3.3 We recommend that the Small BusinessAdministration, through its private-sectorpartners, provide information and training tosmall business owners on developing finan-cial and business management strategies.

During adrought, theincidence of soilerosion mayincrease.


GOAL 4

Maintain a safety net of emergency reliefthat emphasizes sound stewardship ofnatural resources and self-help.

The Commission recognizes that over time,efforts at drought preparedness, including riskmanagement, can greatly reduce, but not elimi-nate, drought-related emergencies. Responsemeasures for drought emergencies can also beuseful to respond to water shortages not causedby drought. In all cases where emergency re-sponse is required, it should be effective andtimely.


4.1 Congress should authorize the Secretary ofAgriculture to borrow from the CommodityCredit Corporation to implement the De-partment of Agriculture’s emergency pro-grams.

4.2 Congress should amend the appropriate U.S.Department of Agriculture’s emergencyprograms to include livestock needs duringdrought.

4.3 The Department of Agriculture shouldestablish a single procedure to trigger, in atimely fashion, all of the Department’sdisaster programs.

4.4 We recommend that emergency assistanceacknowledge, encourage, and rewardnatural resource stewardship and self-helpwithout discriminating against those truly inneed.

4.5 We recommend that Congress enact perma-nent authorization for Title 1 of Public Law102-250, which gives the Bureau of Recla-mation authority to provide emergencydrought assistance. Because the Bureau’sauthority is limited to the Reclamationstates, Congress should extend that author-ity or provide appropriate authority to theArmy Corps of Engineers to serve the non-Reclamation states.

4.6 For those areas not covered by the StaffordAct, Congress should appropriate an annualfund, available until expended and similar tothat available under the Stafford Act, fornon-farm drought emergencies that affecttribes, communities, businesses, and theenvironment.

GOAL 5

Coordinate drought programs and re-sponse effectively, efficiently, and in acustomer-oriented manner.

Federal drought programs are a collection ofinitiatives run by different departments andagencies. Every analysis of past responses tomajor droughts notes that these programs needto be better coordinated and integrated. Westrongly agree. In accordance with our policystatement, we emphasize that coordination offederal drought programs should ensure effectiveservice delivery in support of nonfederal droughtprograms.

Federal droughtprograms are a collection

of initiatives run by differentdepartments and agencies.

Every analysis of pastresponses to major

droughts notes that theseprograms need to be bettercoordinated and integrated.


5.1 Create Council. The President shouldimmediately establish an interim NationalDrought Council through an executive orderand in combination with a Memorandum ofUnderstanding that provides adequatestaffing and funding. Congress should createa long-term, continuing National DroughtCouncil. Both should be composed offederal and regionally diverse nonfederalmembers (see the table on the next page


concerning membership and the designa-tion process). The goal is to implement therecommendations of this report as soon aspracticable.

5.2 Co-chairs. The President should appoint theSecretary of Agriculture as co-chair of theinterim National Drought Council, with anonfederal co-chair elected by thenonfederal interim Council members. Con-gress should designate the Secretary ofAgriculture as the permanent federal co-chair of the long-term Council, with anonfederal co-chair elected by thenonfederal Council members.

5.3 Funding. The President should request andCongress should provide administrativefunding to support the interim and long-term National Drought Councils.

5.4 Duties and process. The interim and long-term National Drought Councils will beresponsible for coordinating the following:

Timely and efficient delivery of existingfederal drought programs.

Cooperation and participation amongfederal, state, local, and tribal interestsand private water systems in federaldrought assistance opportunities byexample and through facilitation.

Program assessments of drought-relatedassistance efforts.

Determination of which regions havethe most pressing need and greatestopportunities to coordinate and imple-ment drought preparedness assistanceprograms, recognizing the special

Table. Council membership and designation process

Federal Council member Nonfederal Council member entity designated by: representation designated by:

Department of Agriculture Department East/West Governors National Governors’Secretary Association

Department of the Interior Department County official National AssociationSecretary of Counties

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

Department of Energy Department Emergency National EmergencySecretary management official Management Association

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

Environmental Protection Agency head Urban water*Agency Rural water*

Tribal*Small Business Agency head Environmental*Administration Farm credit*

Agricultural producers*Federal Emergency Agency headManagement Agency

* Designated by theSecretary of Agriculturebased on nominationsfrom relevant broad-basedgroups.


drought preparedness needs of tribes,small rural water districts, and smallself-supplied water users.

Development of an array of coordina-tion strategies to provide support forstate, local, and tribal drought planningand mitigation measures.

Support of state, local, and tribalinitiatives to coordinate with currentregional drought planning entities,perhaps within watersheds or riverbasins, or to establish new regionalentities.

An assessment of major river basininitiatives and state programs to deter-mine which methods have proven mosteffective in reducing conflicts overwater.

Development of a handbook of emer-gency drought preparedness measures.

A survey of user groups to ascertaindrought monitoring, prediction, andresearch needs and expectations.

Establishment of drought impactassessment teams of federal, state, andother experts who are responsible, afterdrought events occur, for analyzing thecauses and aggravating factors thatcontribute to drought and its social,economic, and environmental impacts.

Development of a handbook on watersupply techniques, including traditionaland non-traditional strategies.

Advocacy of drought-related educa-tional training programs within univer-sities, agencies, and public sectorprograms.

The co-chairs should report to the President andCongress annually on the progress of theseactivities

5.5 Authorization and appropriations. Werecommend that Congress provide federaldepartments and agencies with appropriateauthority and funding needed to carry outthe recommendations in this report. Asnoted at the beginning of this report, con-sideration should be given to the costs andbenefits associated with drought prepared-ness, mitigation, and response measures.


Appendix A: National Drought Policy Act

Public Law 105-199

An Act

To establish an advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations onthe creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare forand respond to serious drought emergencies.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) the United States often suffers serious economic and environmental lossesfrom severe regional droughts and there is no coordinated Federal strategy torespond to such emergencies;

(2) at the Federal level, even though historically there have been frequent,significant droughts of national consequences, drought is addressed mainlythrough special legislation and ad hoc action rather than through a systematicand permanent process as occurs with other natural disasters;

(3) there is an increasing need, particularly at the Federal level, to emphasizepreparedness, mitigation, and risk management (rather than simply crisis man-agement) when addressing drought and other natural disasters or emergencies;

(4) several Federal agencies have a role in drought from predicting, forecasting,and monitoring of drought conditions to the provision of planning, technical,and financial assistance;

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

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

(7) the President should appoint an advisory commission to provide advice andrecommendations on the creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policydesigned to prepare for, mitigate the impacts of, respond to, and recover fromserious drought emergencies.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

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

(b) Membership.--

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

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, or the designee of the Secretary, who shall chairthe Commission;

105th CongressJuly 16, 1998 - [H.R. 3035]note

42 USC 5121 note

42 USC 5121 note

National Drought Policy Actof 1998. note 42 USC 5121note


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H) a person nominated by the National Association of Counties and appointedby the President;

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

(J) six persons, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in coordination with theSecretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, who shall be representa-tive of groups acutely affected by drought emergencies, such as the agriculturalproduction community, the credit community, rural and urban water associa-tions, Native Americans, and fishing and environmental interests.

(2) Date.--The appointments of the members of the Commission shall be madeno later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be appointed for the life ofthe Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, butshall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(d) Initial Meeting.--No later than 30 days after the date on which all members ofthe Commission have been appointed, the Commission shall hold its first meet-ing.

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

(f ) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute aquorum, but a lesser number of members may hold hearings.

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

SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Study and Report.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough study andsubmit a report on national drought policy in accordance with this section.

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

(1) determine, in consultation with the National Drought Mitigation Center inLincoln, Nebraska, and other appropriate entities, what needs exist on theFederal, State, local, and tribal levels to prepare for and respond to droughtemergencies;

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

President

President

President

Deadline.

Deadline.


(3) review State, local, and tribal laws and programs relating to drought that theCommission finds pertinent;

(4) determine what differences exist between the needs of those affected bydrought and the Federal laws and programs designed to mitigate the impacts ofand respond to drought;

(5) collaborate with the Western Drought Coordination Council and otherappropriate entities in order to consider regional drought initiatives and theapplication of such initiatives at the national level;

(6) make recommendations on how Federal drought laws and programs can bebetter integrated with ongoing State, local, and tribal programs into a compre-hensive national policy to mitigate the impacts of and respond to droughtemergencies without diminishing the rights of States to control water throughState law and considering the need for protection of the environment;

(7) make recommendations on improving public awareness of the need fordrought mitigation, and prevention; and response on developing a coordinatedapproach to drought mitigation, prevention, and response by governmental andnongovernmental entities, including academic, private, and nonprofit interests;

and

(8) include a recommendation on whether all Federal drought preparation andresponse programs should be consolidated under one existing Federal agencyand, if so, identify such agency.

(c) Submission of Report.--

(1) In general.--No later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of thisAct, the Commission shall submit a report to the President and Congress whichshall contain a detailed statement of the findings and conclusions of the Com-mission, together with its recommendations for such legislation and administra-tive actions as it considers appropriate.

(2) Approval of report.--Before submission of the report, the contents of thereport shall be approved by unanimous consent or majority vote. If the report isapproved by majority vote, members voting not to approve the contents shall begiven the opportunity to submit dissenting views with the report.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such timesand places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commissionconsiders necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may secure directlyfrom any Federal department or agency such information as the Commissionconsiders necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Upon request of the chair of the Commission, the head of such department oragency shall furnish such information to the Commission.

(c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the samemanner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies ofthe Federal Government.

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

Deadline.

42 USC 5121 note.


SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission who is not anofficer or employee of the Federal Government shall not be compensated forservice on the Commission, except as provided under subsection (b). All mem-bers of the Commission who are officers or employees of the United States shallserve without compensation in addition to that received for their services asofficers or employees of the United States.

(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall be allowed travelexpenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized foremployees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United StatesCode, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the perfor-mance of services for the Commission.

(c) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government employee maybe detailed to the Commission without reimbursement, and such detail shall bewithout interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.

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

SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commissionsubmits its report under section 4.

Approved July 16, 1998.

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

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 105-554, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).SENATE REPORTS: No. 105-144 accompanying S. 222 (Comm. on Governmental Affairs).CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 144 (1998):June 16, considered and passed House.June 24, considered and passed Senate.

42 USC 5121 note.

42 USC 5121 note.


Appendix B:Information Available from theNational Drought Policy CommissionThe following information is available from the National Drought Policy Commission. You can accessthe following appendix files as well as the Commission’s final report and executive summary at theCommission’s web site: www.fsa.usda.gov/drought. The appendix files, final report, and executivesummary can also be ordered in electronic format and hard copy. Write: National Drought PolicyCommission, USDA/FSA/AO, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 0501, Washington, D.C.20250-0501.

FILE A: Summary of Public Testimony at the Commission’s Hearings and Public Comments Submit-ted Independently (by subject matter, entity, and place of business or residence)

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

FILE C: Summary of State Drought-related Programs

FILE D: Summary of Regional Drought-related Programs

FILE E: Summary of Local Government Drought-related Programs

FILE F: Summary of Tribal Drought Plans

FILE G: Summary of Federal Drought-related Programs

FILE H: Summary of Federal Drought-related Laws

Leona DittusExecutive Director

FSA (USDA)

Larry AdamsARS (USDA)

Antona BaileyFSA (USDA)

Shirley BridgesFS (USDA)

George CrossNRCS (USDA)

National Drought Policy Commission StaffAnne Henderson

NRCS (USDA)Maxine LevinNRCS (USDA)Patricia LoweNRCS (USDA)Jim MaetzoldNRCS (USDA)

Lavonne MaasFSA (USDA)Tom PhillipsBOR (USDOI)

Pat PorterDA (USDA)

Twanda SmithFS (USDA)

Janice WatkinsFSA (USDA)

Consultants:Deanne Kloepfer

Writer/editorFred Sibley

Project Analyst

Members of the Interagency Contacts GroupWarren Lee, Co-chairNRCS (USDA)

Lorine BoardwineFederal Emergency Management Agency

Deborah BraverWater Management Consultant

Curtis CarletonFederal Emergency Management Agency

Peter CarlsonWill & Carlson, Inc./Urban Water

Sarah CarlsonMidwestern Governors’ Conference

Michael B. CookU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Bill EwingNew Mexico Department of Public Safety

John FlowersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Abigail FriedmanNational Association of Counties

Gary HudiburghU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Murray JohnstonSouthern Governors’ Association

Doralyn KirklandGeorgia Environmental Protection Division

Jim LaverNational Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Doug LeComteNational Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Ants LeetmaaNational Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

Diana MarquezFarm Credit Bank of Texas

Chris Kadas, Co-chairNational Governors’ Association

Jeri MarxmanNational Association of Counties

Kevin McCartyU.S. Conference of Mayors

Robert McCormickNational Association of Counties

Kimberly MillerOffice of Management and Budget

Ray MothaWorld Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA)

Beth OsborneSouthern Governors’ Association

Jane PeaseSmall Business Administration

Al PeterlinWorld Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA)

Ross RacineIntertribal Agriculture Council

Harold ReheisGeorgia Environmental Protection Division

Roseann Gonzales SchreinerBureau of Reclamation (USDOI)

Bruce SmithOffice of the Secretary of the Army

Ralph TaborNational Association of Counties

Bill WerickU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

“And it never failed

that during the dry years

the people forgot about the rich years,

and during the wet years

they lost all memory of the dry years.

It was always that way.”

—John Steinbeck

East of Eden

IN 21 CENTURY · which required representation of federal and nonfederal government entities and...

Documents

Transcript of IN 21 CENTURY · which required representation of federal and nonfederal government entities and...