Planning for Drought

The Basics of Drought Planning: A 10-Step Process

Step 5: Develop Organizational Structure and Prepare Drought Plan

This step describes the process of establishing relevant committees to develop and write the drought plan and develop the necessary organizational structure to carry out its responsibilities. The drought plan should have three primary components: monitoring, risk assessment, and mitigation and response. It is recommended that committees be established to focus on the first two of these needs; the mitigation and response function can in most instances be carried out by the drought task force (Figure 1).

These committees will have their own tasks and goals, but well-established communication and information flow between committees and the task force is a necessity to ensure effective planning.

Specific responsibilities of the task force at this point are to:

1. Determine mitigation and response actions for each of the principal impact sectors, in close cooperation with the risk assessment committee. Wilhite (1997) recently completed an assessment of drought mitigation technologies implemented by states in response to drought conditions during the late 1980s and early 1990s (http://drought.unl.edu/mitigate/tools.htm). However, the transferability of these technologies to specific situations in other states needs to be evaluated further because they may not be directly transferable in some cases. Working with the risk assessment committee, the task force should come up with recommendations addressing drought on two different time scales:

• Short-term responses to implement during drought, such as voluntary water conservation guidelines, a ready-to-roll hay hotline, streamlined administrative procedures for evaluating emergency assistance applications, and pre-produced infomercials leading agricultural producers and citizens to information on best management practices.
• Long-term drought mitigation projects, such as education programs to give various audiences the background they need to interpret drought news reports or scientific drought indices; programs to persuade people to adopt measures that enhance organic content in soil, conserve water, and otherwise boost the resilience of natural and social systems that are vulnerable to drought.

Assuming there is no ongoing drought, it's a good idea to publicize the recommendations of the task force and seek public input before the plan is implemented, particularly if anything seems revolutionary or controversial.

2. Inventory all forms of assistance available from local, state, and federal government during severe drought. The task force should evaluate these programs for their ability to address short-term emergencies and long-term vulnerability to drought. Assistance should be defined very broadly to include all forms of technical, mitigation, and relief programs available. Drought program inventories are available on the web: the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs and the National Drought Policy Commission's analysis, although it's important to note that the NDPC listing includes programs that have never been funded.
3. Work with the monitoring and risk assessment committees to establish triggers. The monitoring committee can advise the task force on which drought and water supply indices are most relevant for the state or region. It is helpful to establish a sequence of descriptive terms for water supply alert levels, such as "advisory," "alert," "emergency," and "rationing" (as opposed to more generic terms such as "phase 1" and "phase 2," or sensational terms such as "disaster"). The task force should review the terminology used by other entities (i.e., local utilities, states, river basin commissions) and choose terms that are consistent in areas where authorities may have overlapping regional responsibilities. State authorities may wish to provide technical assistance or other forms of encouragement to help local water suppliers establish triggers for different stages of rationing before a drought. Some states, such as California, mandate that every water supplier have a drought contingency plan.
4. Establish drought management areas (i.e., subdivide the state or region into more conveniently sized districts by political boundaries, shared hydrological characteristics, climatological characteristics, or other means such as drought probability or risk). These subdivisions may be useful in drought management since they may allow drought stages and mitigation and response options to be regionalized. Climatic divisions are the most commonly used subdivisions at the state level, but they may not be the most appropriate, given topographic features, land use patterns, or water use characteristics. The task force should work closely with the monitoring committee to understand natural boundaries as well as limitations imposed by existing data collection systems, and with the risk assessment committee to understand the timing of drought's effects on different economic sectors and social groups.
5. The drought task force should develop a website for disseminating drought monitoring information and for letting the public know about the drought plan. Models that could be followed are web pages for the states of Texas, Montana, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nebraska (http://drought.unl.edu/plan/stateplans.htm and http://drought.unl.edu/plan/handbook/other_web_links.htm.

The monitoring committee should meet regularly, especially in advance of the peak demand season. Following each meeting, reports should be prepared and disseminated to the state's drought task force, relevant state and federal agencies, and the media. The chairperson of the monitoring committee should be a permanent member of the drought task force. In many states, this person may be the state climatologist. If conditions warrant, the task force should brief the governor about the contents of the report, including any recommendations for specific actions. It is essential for the public to receive a balanced interpretation of changing conditions. The monitoring committee should work closely with public information specialists to keep the public well informed.

The primary objectives of the monitoring committee are to:

1. Help policy makers adopt a workable definition of drought that could be used to phase in and phase out levels of state and federal actions in response to drought. It may be necessary to adopt more than one definition of drought in identifying impacts in various economic, social, and environmental sectors. Several indices are available (Hayes, 1998), including the Standardized Precipitation Index (McKee et al., 1993; 1995), which is gaining widespread acceptance (Guttman, 1998; Hayes et al., 1999; also refer to http://drought.unl.edu/monitor/spi.htm). The commonly used Palmer Drought Severity Index (Palmer, 1965) is being replaced or supplemented as a monitoring tool in many states. The trend is for states to rely on multiple drought indices as indicators of impacts in various sectors. The current thought is that no single index of drought is adequate to measure the complex interrelationships between the various components of the hydrological cycle and impacts.
2. Help the task force establish drought management areas (i.e., subdivide the state or region into more conveniently sized districts by political boundaries, shared hydrological characteristics, climatological characteristics, or other means such as drought probability or risk). The monitoring committee's advice may be particularly helpful in communicating natural watershed boundaries as well as the limits and constraints imposed by existing data.
3. Develop a drought monitoring system. Most states already have a good data collection system for monitoring climate and water supplies and identifying potential shortfalls. Responsibility for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating the data is divided between many state and federal agencies and other entities. The monitoring committee's challenge is to coordinate and integrate the analysis so decision makers and the public receive early warning of emerging drought conditions. On a national basis, much of this information has been compiled under the Monitoring Drought section of the NDMC's website. Two new products, the Drought Monitor and Current Droughts Affecting the U.S., are good examples. This section is also linked to specific state websites that illustrate how others are organizing information on drought conditions.

   Many states (e.g., Nebraska, Oklahoma, California) have developed automated weather data networks that provide rapid access to climate data. These networks can be invaluable in monitoring emerging and ongoing drought conditions. Data from them can be coupled with data available from federal agencies (e.g., Natural Resources Conservation Service) to provide a comprehensive monitoring of climate and water systems. Data and data products should be disseminated on a timely basis in printed form and electronically via the World Wide Web.
   

4. Inventory data quantity and quality from current observation networks. Many networks monitor key elements of the hydrologic system. Most of these networks are operated by federal or state agencies, but other networks also exist and may provide critical information for a portion of a state or region. Meteorological data are important but represent only one part of a comprehensive monitoring system. Other physical indicators (soil moisture, streamflow, reservoir and ground water levels) must be monitored to reflect impacts of drought on agriculture, households, industry, energy production, and other water users. Helpful technology includes soil moisture sensors, automated weather stations, and satellite data such as digital data obtained from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), transmitted from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite, which is useful in detecting areas where moisture deficiencies are affecting vegetation growth. Much of this data will be integrated under the Unified Climate Access Network (UCAN).
5. Work closely with the task force and risk assessment committees to determine the data needs of primary users. Developing new or modifying existing data collection systems is most effective when the people who will be using the data are consulted early and often. Soliciting input on expected new products or obtaining feedback on existing products is critical to ensuring that products meet the needs of primary users and will be used in decision making. Training on how to use or apply products in routine decision making is also essential.
6. Develop and/or modify current data and information delivery systems. People need to be warned of drought as soon as it is detected, but often they are not. Information needs to reach people in time for them to use it in making decisions. In establishing information channels, the monitoring committee needs to consider when people need various kinds of information. These decision points can determine whether the information provided is used or ignored.

Risk Assessment Committee
Drought impacts cut across many sectors and across normal divisions of responsibility of local, state, and federal agencies. These impacts have been classified by Wilhite and Vanyarkho (2000) and are chronicled in the "Understanding Your Risk" section of the NDMC's website. Risk is the result of exposure to the drought hazard (i.e., probability of occurrence) and societal vulnerability, represented by a combination of economic, environmental, and social factors. Therefore, to reduce vulnerability to drought, it is essential to identify the most significant impacts and assess their underlying causes.

The membership of the risk assessment committee should represent economic sectors, social groups, and ecosystems most at risk from drought. The committee's chairperson should be a member of the task force.

The most effective approach to follow in determining vulnerability to and impacts of drought is to create working groups under the aegis of the risk assessment committee. The responsibility of the committee and working groups is to assess sectors, population groups, and ecosystems most at risk and identify appropriate and reasonable mitigation measures to address these risks. Working groups would be composed of technical specialists and stakeholders representing those areas referred to above. The chair of each working group, as a member of the risk assessment committee, would report directly to the committee. Following this model, the responsibility of the committee is to direct the activities of each of the working groups and make recommendations to the drought task force on mitigation actions.

The number of working groups will vary considerably between states. Colorado has identified eight impact working groups: municipal water, wildfire protection, agricultural industry, commerce and tourism, wildlife, economic, energy loss, and health. Idaho's drought plan outlines the responsibilities of five subcommittees: water data, public information, agriculture, municipal supplies and water quality, and recreation and tourism. New Mexico uses four sub-groups: agricultural; drinking water, health, and energy; wildlife and wildfire protection; and tourism and economic impact. Nebraska's drought plan identifies two working groups: agriculture, natural resources, wildlife, tourism, and recreation; and municipal water supply, health, and energy.

A methodology for assessing and reducing the risks associated with drought has recently been completed as a result of collaboration between the NDMC and the Western Drought Coordination Council's (WDCC) Mitigation and Response Working Group (Knutson et al., 1998) and is available on the NDMC's website at http://drought.unl.edu/handbook/risk.pdf. The guide focuses on identifying and assigning priorities to drought impacts, determining their underlying causes, and choosing actions to address the underlying causes. This methodology can be employed by each of the working groups. This effort requires an interdisciplinary analysis of impacts and management options and is divided into six tasks:

1. Assemble the team. Select stakeholders, government planners, and others with a working knowledge of drought's effects on primary sectors, regions, and people.
2. Evaluate the effects of past droughts. Identify how drought has affected the region, group, or ecosystem. Consult climatological records to determine the "drought of record," the worst in recorded history, and project what would happen if a similar drought occurred this year or in the near future, considering changes in land use, population growth, and development that have taken place since that drought.
3. Rank impacts. Determine which drought effects are most urgently in need of attention. Various considerations in assigning priority to these effects include cost, areal extent, trends over time, public opinion, social equity, and the ability of the affected area to recover.
4. Identify underlying causes. Determine those factors that are causing the highest levels of risk for various sectors, regions, and populations. For example, an unreliable source of water for municipalities in a particular region may explain the impacts that have resulted from recent droughts in that area. To reduce the potential for drought impacts in the future, it is necessary to understand the underlying environmental, economic, and social causes of these impacts. To do this, drought impacts must be identified and the reason for their occurrence determined.
5. Identify ways to reduce risk. Identify actions that can be taken before drought that will reduce risk. In the example above, taking steps to identify new or alternative sources of water (e.g., ground water) could increase resiliency to subsequent episodes of drought.
6. Write a "to do" list. Work with the task force to assign priority to options according to what is likely to be the most feasible, cost-effective, and socially equitable. Implement steps to address these actions through existing government programs or the legislative process.

   This process has the potential to lead to the identification of effective and appropriate drought risk reduction activities that will reduce long-term drought impacts, rather than ad hoc responses or untested mitigation actions that may not effectively reduce the impact of future droughts.

On to Step 6
Back to the 10-Step Process