Managing Drought and Water Scarcity in Vulnerable

Environments:Creating a Roadmap for Change in

the United States

Donald A. Wilhite, Director

National Drought Mitigation Center

Professor, School of Natural Resources

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Why are we here?

Percent Area of the United States in Severe and Extreme Drought

January 1895–June 2006

Based on data from the National Climatic Data Center/NOAA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

1930s 1950s

% A

rea

Affe

cted

Components of Drought Risk Management

(social factors)(natural event)

Exposure (Static or

Dynamic?)

Static or Dynamic?

Conference Goals

To create an integrated, interactive, future-oriented forum for understanding

and improving our management of drought and water scarcity in the U.S.

Conference Goals

To stimulate national debate through the publication and wide distribution of a science- and policy-based discussion document, i.e. “Roadmap for Change.”

Participatory meeting

Plenary sessionsWorld CaféBreakout sessionsPoster sessionsDiscussion/brainstorming sessions

SponsorsGSAAMSAWRAAWWAESANGWASoc. for Range Mgmt.SSSAGroundwater FoundationNOAA/NCDCUSGSUSACENational Institutes for Water Resources

National Drought Mitigation Center, Univ. of Nebraska-LincolnColorado State UniversityDesert Research Institute, Univ. of Nevada-RenoDenver Museum of NatureWestern Water AssessmentWestern Rural Development CenterNatural Hazards Center, Univ. of Colorado

Technical Program Committee

Donald Wilhite, National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Chair)David Diodato, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review BoardJeff Mosher, National Water Research InstituteJoel Schneekloth, Regional Water Resource Specialist, Colorado State UniversityEvan Vlachos, Colorado State UniversityJohn Warwick, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada-RenoOlga Wilhelmi, Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, NCAR

GSA Staff

Deborah Nelson, Strategic InitiativesLisa Winkler, Hotel ArrangementsMollie VanOtterloo, AbstractsKevin Ricker, Registrations

Meeting Format

Monday—Drought management: Past and Present (Identifying and Overcoming Impediments) with World Café and BreakoutsMonday evening—Reception and poster sessionTuesday—Passage to the Future with BreakoutsTuesday evening—poster sessionTuesday banquet—David OstlerWednesday—Interactions of science and policy (Panel and Discussion session)

How do we move from Crisis to Drought Risk Management?

What are the challenges and opportunities?

Letterman’s Top Ten List

Top 10 signs you had a bad summer.

#1. Your name is Mel Gibson!#1. You experienced your 7th consecutive year of drought!

What are the Top 10 challenges for improving

drought management in the U.S.?

#10. Drought doesn’t get respect!It’s the Rodney Dangerfield of natural

hazards!Drought commonly affects >30% of the nationAnnual impacts $6-8 billion (1995 $$)Increasing vulnerability$30 billion in drought relief since 1988Crop insurance payments more than $10 billion from 1996-2005

#9. Drought monitoring and early warning is more complex.

Slow onset, creeping phenomenonMultiple indicatorsNo universal definition, multiple drought typesBeginning/end, severity difficult to determine

#8. Institutional inertia constrains change from crisis to risk management.

More than 45 federal drought relief programs exist, mostly for agricultural droughtDrought relief has been demonstrated to reduce self-reliance and is usually untimely, ineffective, and poorly targeted to drought-affected areas.

Guiding Principles of Drought Policy

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

Set research priorities based on potential to reduce impacts

Coordinate delivery of federal services through cooperation and collaboration with non-Federal entities

USDA Drought ExpendituresFY 1998

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Monitoring Mitigation Risk Mgt. Response

FY 98

The Cycle of Disaster Management

#7. Impacts are poorly understood and documented.

No routine collection of impact informationNo systematic methodology for assessing impactsLittle impact information available for non-agricultural sectors

#6. Drought relief discourages a risk-based management approach.Relief rewards lack of planningMaintains status quo for resource managementIncreases dependence on governmentNot cost-effectiveGAO, “develop a national drought plan”, 1980

1980

#5. Poor understanding of how societal changes affect

vulnerability.

Population growthMigrating population to west, southeastUrbanizationEnvironmental values/awarenessLand use changesEnvironmental degradationTechnologyGovernmental policies

Drought Flooding

X (e.g. precipitation, soil moisture, etc.)

Pro

babi

lity

P (x

) Coping range

Drought vulnerability is a variable.Drought vulnerability is a variable.

Adapted from work by Barry Smit, University of Guelph

Within every society, there is a certain capacity

to cope with drought.

Societal changes can increase or decrease

this coping range.

66%

40%

28%

26%

31%

30%21%

20%

23%20%

#4. Drought prediction skills are limited.

Uncertainty reduces applicationUncertainty poorly communicated to usersHow to apply forecast information poorly understoodForecast information is not well tailored to decision makers

Temperature Precipitation

#3. Decision-support tools and delivery systems must be improved.

End-to-end-to-end systems must be developedTraining must be provided to apply toolsTools must be application/user specificResolution of decision-support tools must be increased for policy and management decisions

U.S. Drought Monitor Decision Support System

Moving toward state-level trend analysis capabilities (left) and providing more county-level drought assessment information (right).

#2. Drought mitigation actions are less obvious.

Impacts largely non-structural, mitigation solutions also largely non-structuralSpatial extent of impacts greater

Significant regional differences in impacts/mitigation needs

Droughts have multiple and migrating epicenters

#1. Congressional and Presidential support for national drought policy lacking.

National Drought Policy Act, 1998National Drought Policy Commission Report, 2000National Drought Preparedness Act, 2001-2003-2005National Integrated Drought Information System, 2006

NIDISKey question: Why have repeated attempts

to change the drought management paradigm failed?

Are we making progress in addressing these

challenges?

Progress Indicators

Drought Preparedness

38 states with drought plansSeveral tribal drought plansNational Drought Preparedness Act

Progress Indicators

ResearchGreater collaborationMore RFPs with drought as a central themeGreater recognition by federal agencies

Progress Indicators

Building awarenessIncreasing among policy makersGrand Challenges report/SDRNational Academy of Sciences report, Multiple Environmental Stresses (Drought case study)

Progress Indicators

Drought monitoring and early warningU.S. Drought Monitor

• Collaborative/partnership• Increased awareness of drought occurrence and severity• Used for policy decisions• Seeking constant improvement

Progress Indicators

National IntegratedDrought Information System (NIDIS)

• Federal/non-Federal partnership

• House and Senate bills (NOAA the implementing agency)

Challenge

Contribute your ideas for changing the paradigm for drought management in the U.S.

Help us develop the Roadmap for Change!

Thanks for your attention!