Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity · Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 95 increased frequency of drought events in the future,

93

5

Drought Preparedness Planning:Building Institutional Capacity

DONALD A. WILHITE, MICHAEL J. HAYES,AND CODY L. KNUTSON

CONTENTS

I. Introduction .................................................................. 94II. Planning for Drought: The Process............................. 96III. Step 1: Appoint a Drought Task Force ....................... 98IV. Step 2: State the Purpose and Objectives of the

Drought Plan ................................................................ 99V. Step 3: Seek Stakeholder Participation and

Resolve Conflict .......................................................... 101VI. Step 4: Inventory Resources and Identify Groups

at Risk......................................................................... 102VII. Step 5: Establish and Write Drought Plan .............. 103

A. Monitoring, Early Warning, and Prediction Committee............................................................ 104

B. Risk Assessment Committee .............................. 1081. Task 1: Assemble the Team .......................... 109

DK2949_book.fm Page 93 Friday, February 11, 2005 11:25 AM

94 Wilhite et al.

2. Task 2: Drought Impact Assessment ........... 1103. Task 3: Ranking Impacts .............................. 1114. Task 4: Vulnerability Assessment ................ 1165. Task 5: Action Identification......................... 1186. Task 6: Developing the “To Do” List ............ 1217. Completion of Risk Analysis......................... 122

C. Mitigation and Response Committee................. 122D. Writing the Plan.................................................. 129

VIII. Step 6: Identify Research Needs and FillInstitutional Gaps ...................................................... 129

IX. Step 7: Integrate Science and Policy ........................ 130X. Step 8: Publicize the Drought Plan—Build Public

Awareness and Consensus......................................... 130XI. Step 9: Develop Education Programs ....................... 131XII. Step 10: Evaluate and Revise Drought Plan ........... 132

A. Ongoing Evaluation............................................. 132B. Post-Drought Evaluation .................................... 132

XIII. Summary and Conclusion.......................................... 133References............................................................................ 134

I. INTRODUCTION

Past attempts to manage drought and its impacts through areactive, crisis management approach have been ineffective,poorly coordinated, and untimely, as illustrated by the hydro-illogical cycle in Figure 1. The crisis management approachhas been followed in both developed and developing countries.Because of the ineffectiveness of this approach, greater inter-est has evolved in recent years in the adoption of a moreproactive risk-based management approach in some countries(see Chapter 6). Other countries are striving to obtain ahigher level of preparedness through development of nationalaction programs that are part of the United Nations Conven-tion to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) or as part of separatenational initiatives. In part, these actions directly result fromthe occurrence of recent severe drought episodes that havepersisted for several consecutive years or frequent episodesthat have occurred in succession with short respites for recov-ery between events. Global warming, with its threat of an


Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 95

increased frequency of drought events in the future, has alsocaused greater anxiety about the absence of preparation fordrought, which is a normal part of climate. Other factors thathave contributed to this trend toward improved drought pre-paredness and policy development are spiraling costs orimpacts associated with drought, complexity of impacts onsectors well beyond agriculture, increasing social and envi-ronmental effects, and rising water conflicts between users.

Progress on drought preparedness and policy develop-ment has been slow for a number of reasons. It certainlyrelates to the slow-onset characteristics of drought and thelack of a universal definition. These characteristics (definedin more detail in Chapter 1) make early warning, impactassessment, and response difficult for scientists, naturalresource managers, and policy makers. The lack of a universal

Figure 1

Hydro-illogical cycle. (

Source

: National Drought Mitiga-tion Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.)

CONCERN

AWARENESS

DROUGHT

APATHY

RAIN

PANIC

THEHYDRO-ILLOGICAL

CYCLE


96 Wilhite et al.

definition often leads to confusion and inaction on the part ofdecision makers because scientists may disagree on the exist-ence of drought conditions and severity. Severity is also diffi-cult to characterize because it is best evaluated on the basisof multiple indicators and indices rather than a single vari-able. The impacts of drought are also largely nonstructuraland spatially extensive, making it difficult to assess the effectsof drought and respond in a timely and effective manner.Drought and its impacts are not as visual as other naturalhazards, making it difficult for the media to communicate thesignificance of the event and its impacts to the public. Publicsentiment to respond is often lacking in comparison to othernatural hazards that result in loss of life and property.

Another constraint to drought preparedness has been thedearth of methodologies available to planners to guide themthrough the planning process. Drought differs in its charac-teristics between climate regimes, and impacts are locallydefined by unique economic, social, and environmental char-acteristics. A methodology developed by Wilhite (1991) andrevised to incorporate greater emphasis on risk management(Wilhite et al., 2000) has provided a set of guidelines or achecklist of the key elements of a drought plan and a processthrough which they can be adapted to any level of government(i.e., local, state or provincial, or national) or geographicalsetting as part of a natural disaster or sustainable develop-ment plan, an integrated water resources plan, or a stand-alone drought mitigation plan. We describe this process here,with the goal of providing a template that government ororganizations can follow to reduce societal vulnerability todrought.

II. PLANNING FOR DROUGHT: THE PROCESS

Drought is a natural hazard that differs from other hazardsin that it has a slow onset, evolves over months or even years,affects a large spatial region, and causes little structuraldamage. Its onset and end are often difficult to determine, asis its severity. Like other hazards, the impacts of drought spaneconomic, environmental, and social sectors and can bereduced through mitigation and preparedness. Because



droughts are a normal part of climate variability for virtuallyall regions, it is important to develop drought preparednessplans to deal with these extended periods of water shortagein a timely, systematic manner as they evolve. To be effective,these plans must evaluate a region’s exposure and vulnera-bility to the hazard and incorporate these elements in a waythat evolves with societal changes.

The 10-step drought planning process developed by Wil-hite (1991) was based largely on interactions with many statesin the United States, incorporating their experiences and les-sons learned. This planning process has gone through severaliterations in recent years in order to tailor it to specific coun-tries or subsets of countries (Wilhite et al., 2000). It has alsobeen the basis for discussions at a series of regional trainingworkshops and seminars on drought management and pre-paredness held throughout the world over the past decade.With the increased interest in drought mitigation planningin recent years, this planning process has evolved to incorpo-rate more emphasis on risk assessment and mitigation tools.

The 10-step drought planning process is illustrated inFigure 2. In brief, Steps 1–4 focus on making sure the rightpeople are brought together, have a clear understanding ofthe process, know what the drought plan must accomplish,and are supplied with adequate data to make fair and equi-table decisions when formulating and writing the actualdrought plan. Step 5 describes the process of developing anorganizational structure for completion of the tasks necessaryto prepare the plan. The plan should be viewed as a process,rather than a discrete event that produces a static document.A risk assessment is undertaken in conjunction with this stepin order to construct a vulnerability profile for key economicsectors, population groups, regions, and communities. Steps6 and 7 detail the need for ongoing research and coordinationbetween scientists and policy makers. Steps 8 and 9 stressthe importance of promoting and testing the plan beforedrought occurs. Finally, Step 10 emphasizes revising the planto keep it current and evaluating its effectiveness in the post-drought period. Although the steps are sequential, many ofthese tasks are addressed simultaneously under the leader-ship of a drought task force and its complement of committees


98 Wilhite et al.

and working groups. These steps, and the tasks included ineach, provide a “checklist” that should be considered and maybe completed as part of the planning process.

III. STEP 1: APPOINT A DROUGHT TASK FORCE

A key political leader initiates the drought planning processthrough appointment of a drought task force. Depending onthe level of government developing the plan, this could be thepresident or prime minister, a provincial or state governor, ora mayor. The task force has two purposes. First, it supervisesand coordinates development of the plan. Second, after theplan is developed and during times of drought when the planis activated, the task force coordinates actions, implements

Figure 2

Ten-step planning process. (

Source

: National DroughtMitigation Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska,USA.)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7

Step 8

Step 9

Step 10

Appoint a drought task force

Evaluate and revise drought preparedness plan

Develop education programs

Publicize the drought preparedness plan and build public awareness

Integrate science and policy

Identify research needs and fill institutional gaps

Prepare/write the drought preparedness plan

Inventory resources and identify groups at risk

Seek stakeholder participation and resolve conflict

State the purpose and objectives of the drought preparedness plan



mitigation and response programs, and makes policy recom-mendations to the appropriate political leader.

The task force should reflect the multidisciplinary natureof drought and its impacts, and it should include appropriaterepresentatives of government agencies (provincial, federal)and universities where appropriate expertise is available. Ifapplicable, the governor’s office should have a representativeon the task force. Environmental and public interest groupsand others from the private sector can be included (see Step3), as appropriate. These groups would be involved to a con-siderable extent in the activities of the working groups asso-ciated with the Risk Assessment Committee discussed in Step5. The actual makeup of this task force would vary consider-ably, depending on the principal economic and other sectorsaffected, the political infrastructure, and other factors. Thetask force should include a public information official that isfamiliar with local media’s needs and preferences and a publicparticipation practitioner who can help establish a processthat includes and accommodates both well-funded and disad-vantaged stakeholder or interest groups.

IV. STEP 2: STATE THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE DROUGHT PLAN

As its first official action, the drought task force should statethe general purpose for the drought plan. Government offi-cials should consider many questions as they define the pur-pose of the plan, such as the

• Purpose and role of government in drought mitigationand response efforts

• Scope of the plan• Most drought-prone areas of the state or nation• Historical impacts of drought• Historical response to drought• Most vulnerable economic and social sectors• Role of the plan in resolving conflict between water

users and other vulnerable groups during periods ofshortage


100 Wilhite et al.

• Current trends (e.g., land and water use, populationgrowth) that may increase or decrease vulnerabilityand conflicts in the future

• Resources (human and economic) the government iswilling to commit to the planning process

• Legal and social implications of the plan• Principal environmental concerns caused by drought

A generic statement of purpose for a plan is to reducethe impacts of drought by identifying principal activities,groups, or regions most at risk and developing mitigationactions and programs that alter these vulnerabilities. Theplan is directed at providing government with an effectiveand systematic means of assessing drought conditions, devel-oping mitigation actions and programs to reduce risk inadvance of drought, and developing response options thatminimize economic stress, environmental losses, and socialhardships during drought.

The task force should then identify the specific objectivesthat support the purpose of the plan. Drought plan objectiveswill vary within and between countries and should reflect theunique physical, environmental, socioeconomic, and politicalcharacteristics of the region in question. For a provincial,state, or regional plan, objectives that should be consideredinclude the following:

• Collect and analyze drought-related information in atimely and systematic manner.

• Establish criteria for declaring drought emergenciesand triggering various mitigation and response activ-ities.

• Provide an organizational structure and delivery sys-tem that ensures information flow between and withinlevels of government.

• Define the duties and responsibilities of all agencieswith respect to drought.

• Maintain a current inventory of government programsused in assessing and responding to drought emergen-cies.



• Identify drought-prone areas of the state or region andvulnerable economic sectors, individuals, or environ-ments.

• Identify mitigation actions that can be taken toaddress vulnerabilities and reduce drought impacts.

• Provide a mechanism to ensure timely and accurateassessment of drought’s impacts on agriculture, indus-try, municipalities, wildlife, tourism and recreation,health, and other areas.

• Keep the public informed of current conditions andresponse actions by providing accurate, timely infor-mation to media in print and electronic form (e.g., viaTV, radio, and the World Wide Web).

• Establish and pursue a strategy to remove obstaclesto the equitable allocation of water during shortagesand establish requirements or provide incentives toencourage water conservation.

• Establish a set of procedures to continually evaluateand exercise the plan and periodically revise the planso it will stay responsive to the needs of the area.

V. STEP 3: SEEK STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND RESOLVE CONFLICT

Social, economic, and environmental values often clash as com-petition for scarce water resources intensifies. Therefore, it isessential for task force members to identify all citizen groups(stakeholders) that have a stake in drought planning andunderstand

their interests. These groups must be involvedearly and continuously for fair representation and effectivedrought management and planning. Discussing concerns earlyin the process gives participants a chance to develop an under-standing of one another’s various viewpoints and generate col-laborative solutions. Although the level of involvement of thesegroups will vary notably from location to location, the powerof public interest groups in policy making is considerable. Infact, these groups are likely to impede progress in the devel-opment of plans if they are not included in the process. Thetask force should also protect the interests of stakeholders who


102 Wilhite et al.

may lack the financial resources to serve as their own advo-cates. One way to facilitate public participation is to establisha

citizen’s advisory council as a permanent feature of thedrought plan, to help the task force keep information flowingand resolve conflicts between stakeholders.

State or provincial governments need to consider if dis-trict or regional advisory councils should be established.These councils could bring neighbors together to discuss theirwater use issues and problems and seek collaborative solu-tions. At the provincial level, a representative of each districtcouncil should be included in the membership of the provincialcitizens’ advisory council to represent the interests and valuesof their constituencies. The provincial citizens’ advisory coun-cil can then make recommendations and express concerns tothe task force as well as respond to requests for situationreports and updates.

VI. STEP 4: INVENTORY RESOURCES AND IDENTIFY GROUPS AT RISK

An inventory of natural, biological, and human resources,including the identification of constraints that may impedethe planning process, may need to be initiated by the taskforce. In many cases, various provincial and federal agenciesalready possess considerable information about natural andbiological resources. It is important to determine the vulner-ability of these resources to periods of water shortage thatresult from drought. The most obvious

natural

resource

ofimportance is water: its location, accessibility, and quality.

Biological resources

refer to the quantity and quality of grass-lands or rangelands, forests, wildlife, and so forth.

Humanresources

include the labor needed to develop water resources,lay pipeline, haul water and livestock feed, process citizencomplaints, provide technical assistance, and direct citizensto available services.

It is also imperative to identify constraints to the plan-ning process and to the activation of the various elements ofthe plan as drought conditions develop. These constraints maybe physical, financial, legal, or political. The costs associated



with plan development must be weighed against the lossesthat will likely result if no plan is in place. The purpose of adrought plan is to reduce risk and, therefore, economic, social,and environmental impacts. Legal constraints can includewater rights, existing public trust laws, requirements for pub-lic water suppliers, liability issues, and so forth.

In drought planning, making the transition from crisisto risk management is difficult because, historically, little hasbeen done to understand and address the risks associatedwith drought. To solve this problem, areas of high risk shouldbe identified, as should actions that can be taken to reducethose risks before a drought occurs. Risk is defined by boththe exposure of a location to the drought hazard and thevulnerability of that location to periods of drought-inducedwater shortages (Blaikie et al., 1994). Drought is a naturalevent; it is important to define the exposure (i.e., frequencyof drought of various intensities and durations) of variousparts of the state or region to the drought hazard. Some areasare likely to be more at risk than others. Vulnerability, on theother hand, is affected by social factors such as populationgrowth and migration trends, urbanization, changes in landuse, government policies, water use trends, diversity of eco-nomic base, cultural composition, and so forth. The droughttask force should address these issues early in the planningprocess so they can provide more direction to the committeesand working groups that will be developed under Step 5 ofthe planning process.

VII. STEP 5: ESTABLISH AND WRITE DROUGHT PLAN

This step describes the process of establishing relevant com-mittees to develop and write the drought plan. The droughtplan should have three primary components: (1) monitoring,early warning, and prediction; (2) risk and impact assess-ment; and (3) mitigation and response. We recommended thata committee be established to focus on the first two of theseneeds; the drought task force can in most instances carry outthe mitigation and response function.


104 Wilhite et al.

The suggested organizational structure for the plan isillustrated in Figure 3.

The committees will have their owntasks and goals, but well-established communication andinformation flow between committees and the task force isnecessary to ensure effective planning.

A. Monitoring, Early Warning, and Prediction Committee

A reliable assessment of water availability and its outlook forthe near and long term is valuable information in both dryand wet periods. During drought, the value of this informationincreases markedly. The monitoring committee should includerepresentatives from agencies with responsibilities for moni-toring climate and water supply. Data and information oneach of the applicable indicators (e.g., precipitation, temper-ature, evapotranspiration, seasonal climate forecasts, soil

Figure 3

Drought task force organizational structure. (

Source

:National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska, Lin-coln, Nebraska, USA.)

Policy D

irecti

on

Assessment R

eports

AssessmentReports

SituationReports

DroughtTaskForce

Monitoring CommitteeRisk AssessmentCommittee (RAC)

Working Groups

Policy Direction

Situ

atio

n R

epor

ts



moisture, streamflow, groundwater levels, reservoir and lakelevels, and snowpack) ought to be considered in the commit-tee’s evaluation of the water situation and outlook. The agen-cies responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminatingdata and information will vary considerably from country tocountry and province to province.

The monitoring committee should meet regularly, espe-cially in advance of the peak demand season. Following eachmeeting, reports should be prepared and disseminated to thedrought task force, relevant government agencies, and themedia. The chairperson of the monitoring committee shouldbe a permanent member of the drought task force. If condi-tions warrant, the task force should brief the governor orappropriate government official about the contents of thereport, including any recommendations for specific actions.The public must receive a balanced interpretation of changingconditions. The monitoring committee should work closelywith public information specialists to keep the public well-informed.

The primary objectives of the monitoring committee are to

1. Adopt a workable definition of drought that could beused to phase in and phase out levels of local stateor provincial, and federal

actions in response todrought. The group may need to adopt more than onedefinition of drought in identifying impacts in variouseconomic, social, and environmental sectors becauseno single definition of drought applies in all cases.Several indices are available (Hayes, 1998), includingthe Standardized Precipitation Index (McKee et al.,1993, 1995), which is gaining widespread acceptance(Guttman, 1998; Hayes et al., 1999; also see

http://drought. unl.edu/ whatis/Indices.pdf

. The trend is to rely on multiple drought indices totrigger mitigation and response actions, which arecalibrated to various intensities of drought. The cur-rent thought is that no single index of drought isadequate to measure the complex interrelationshipsbetween the various components of the hydrologicalcycle and impacts.


106 Wilhite et al.

It is helpful to establish a sequence of descriptiveterms for water supply alert levels, such as “advisory,”“alert,” “emergency,” and “rationing” (as opposed tomore generic terms such as “phase 1” and “phase 2,”or sensational terms such as “disaster”). Review theterminology used by other entities (i.e., local utilities,provinces, river basin authorities) and choose termsthat are consistent so as not to confuse the publicwith different terms in areas where there may beauthorities with overlapping regional responsibili-ties. These alert levels should be defined in discus-sions with both the risk assessment committee andthe task force.In considering emergency measures such as ration-ing, remember that the impacts of drought may varysignificantly from one area to the next, depending onthe sources and uses of water and the degree of plan-ning previously implemented. For example, some cit-ies may have recently expanded their water supplycapacity while other adjacent communities may havean inadequate water supply capacity during periodsof drought. Imposing general emergency measures onpeople or communities without regard for their exist-ing vulnerability may result in political repercussionsand loss of credibility.A related consideration is that some municipal watersystems may be out of date or in poor operating con-dition, so that even moderate drought strains a com-munity’s ability to supply customers with water.Identifying inadequate (i.e., vulnerable) water supplysystems and upgrading those systems should be partof a long-term drought mitigation program.

2. Establish drought management areas; that is, subdi-vide the province or region into more convenientlysized districts by political boundaries, shared hydro-logical characteristics, climatological characteristics,or other means such as drought probability or risk.These subdivisions may be useful in drought man-agement because they may allow drought stages andmitigation and response options to be regionalized.



3. Develop a drought monitoring system. The quality ofmeteorological and hydrological networks is highlyvariable from country to country and region to regionwithin countries. Responsibility for collecting, ana-lyzing, and disseminating data is divided betweenmany government authorities. The monitoring com-mittee’s challenge is to coordinate and integrate theanalysis so decision makers and the public receiveearly warning of emerging drought conditions.Considerable experience has developed in recentyears with automated weather data networks thatprovide rapid access to climate data. These networkscan be invaluable in monitoring emerging and ongo-ing drought conditions. Investigate the experiencesof regions with comprehensive automated meteoro-logical and hydrological networks and apply theirlessons learned, where appropriate.

4. Inventory data quantity and quality from currentobservation networks. Many networks monitor keyelements of the hydrologic system. Most of these net-works are operated by federal or provincial agencies,but other networks also exist and may provide criticalinformation for a portion of a province or region.Meteorological data are important but represent onlyone part of a comprehensive monitoring system.These other physical indicators (soil moisture,streamflow, reservoir and groundwater levels) mustbe monitored to reflect impacts of drought on agri-culture, households, industry, energy production,transportation, recreation and tourism, and otherwater users.

5. Determine the data needs of primary users. Devel-oping new or modifying existing data collection sys-tems is most effective when the people who will beusing the data are consulted early and often. Solicit-ing input on expected new products or obtaining feed-back on existing products is critical to ensuring thatproducts meet the needs of primary users and, there-fore, will be used in decision making. Training on how


108 Wilhite et al.

to use or apply products in routine decision makingis also essential.

6. Develop or modify current data and informationdelivery systems. People need to be warned ofdrought as soon as it is detected, but often they arenot. Information needs to reach people in time forthem to use it in making decisions. In establishinginformation channels, the monitoring committeeneeds to consider when people need what kinds ofinformation. These decision points can determinewhether the information provided is used or ignored.

B. Risk Assessment Committee

Risk is the product of exposure to the drought hazard (i.e.,probability of occurrence) and societal vulnerability, repre-sented by a combination of economic, environmental, and socialfactors. Therefore, to reduce vulnerability to drought, one mustidentify the most significant impacts and assess their under-lying causes. Drought impacts cut across many sectors andacross normal divisions of government authority. These impactshave been classified by Wilhite and Vanyarkho (2000) and areavailable on the website of the National Drought MitigationCenter (NDMC) (

http://drought.unl.edu

).The membership of the risk assessment committee

should represent economic sectors, social groups, and ecosys-tems most at risk from drought. The committee’s chairpersonshould be a member of the drought task force. Experience hasdemonstrated that the most effective approach to follow indetermining vulnerability to and impacts of drought is tocreate a series of working groups under the aegis of the riskassessment committee. The responsibility of the committeeand working groups is to assess sectors, population groups,communities, and ecosystems most at risk and identify appro-priate and reasonable mitigation measures to address theserisks. Working groups would be composed of technical special-ists representing those areas referred to above. The chair ofeach working group, as a member of the risk assessmentcommittee, would report directly to the committee. Following



this model, the responsibility of the risk assessment commit-tee is to direct the activities of each of the working groupsand make recommendations to the drought task force on mit-igation actions.

The number of working groups will vary considerablybetween countries or provinces, reflecting the principal impactsectors. The more complex the economy and society, the largerthe number of working groups is necessary to reflect thesesectors. Working groups may focus on some combination ofthe following sectors: agriculture, recreation and tourism,industry, commerce, drinking water supplies, energy, environ-ment, wildfire protection, and health.

In drought management, making the transition from cri-sis to risk management is difficult because little has beendone to understand and address the risks associated withdrought. A methodology has been developed by the NDMC tohelp guide drought planners through the risk assessmentprocess. This methodology focuses on identifying and rankingthe priority of relevant drought impacts; examining theunderlying environmental, economic, and social causes ofthese impacts; and then choosing actions that will addressthese underlying causes. What makes this methodology dif-ferent and more helpful than previous methodologies is thatit addresses the causes behind drought impacts. Previously,responses to drought have been reactions to impacts. Under-standing why specific impacts occur provides the opportunityto lessen impacts in the future by addressing these vulnera-bilities through the identification and adoption of specificmitigation actions. This methodology is described below,divided into six specific tasks. Once the risk assessment com-mittee identifies the working groups, each of these groupswould follow this methodology.

1. Task 1: Assemble the Team

It is essential to bring together the right people and supplythem with adequate data to make fair, efficient, and informeddecisions pertaining to drought risk. Members of this groupshould be technically trained in the specific topical areas


110 Wilhite et al.

covered by the working groups. When dealing with the issuesof appropriateness, urgency, equity, and cultural awarenessin drought risk analysis, include public input and consider-ation. Public participation could be warranted at every step,but time and money may limit involvement to key stages inthe risk analysis and planning process (public review vs. pub-lic participation). The amount of public involvement is at thediscretion of the drought task force and other members of theplanning team. The advantage of publicly discussing ques-tions and options is that the procedures used in making anydecision will be better understood, and it will also demon-strate a commitment to participatory management. At a min-imum, decisions and reasoning should be openly documentedto build public trust and understanding.

The choice of specific actions to deal with the underlyingcauses of the drought impacts will depend on the economicresources available and related social values. Typical concernsare associated with cost and technical feasibility, effective-ness, equity, and cultural perspectives. This process has thepotential to lead to the identification of effective and appro-priate drought risk reduction activities that will reduce long-term drought impacts, rather than ad hoc responses oruntested mitigation actions that may not effectively reducethe impact of future droughts.

2. Task 2: Drought Impact Assessment

Impact assessment examines the consequences of a givenevent or change. For example, drought is typically associatedwith a number of outcomes. Drought impact assessmentsbegin by identifying direct consequences of the drought, suchas reduced crop yields, livestock losses, and reservoir deple-tion. These direct outcomes can then be traced to secondaryconsequences (often social effects), such as the forced sale ofhousehold assets or land, dislocation, or physical and emo-tional stress. This initial assessment identifies droughtimpacts but does not identify the underlying reasons for theseimpacts.



Drought impacts can be classified as economic, environ-mental, or social, although many impacts may span more thanone sector. Table1 provides a detailed checklist of impacts thatcould affect a region or location. Recent drought impacts,especially if they are associated with severe to extremedrought, should be weighted more heavily than the impactsof historical drought, in most cases. Recent events more accu-rately reflect current vulnerabilities, the purpose of this exer-cise. Attention should also be given to specific impacts thatare expected to emerge in the future.

To perform an assessment using the checklist in Table1, check the box in front of each category that has beenaffected by drought in your study area. Classify the types ofimpacts according to the severity of drought, noting that inthe future, droughts of lesser magnitude may produce moreserious impacts if vulnerability is increasing. Hopefully, inter-ventions taken now will reduce these vulnerabilities in thefuture. Define the “drought of record” for each region.Droughts differ from one another according to intensity, dura-tion, and spatial extent. Thus, there may be several droughtsof record, depending on the criteria emphasized (i.e., mostsevere drought of a season or year vs. most severe multi-yeardrought). These analyses would yield a range of impactsrelated to the severity of drought. In addition, highlightingpast, current, and potential impacts may reveal trends thatwill also be useful for planning purposes. These impacts high-light sectors, populations, or activities that are vulnerable todrought and, when evaluated with the probability of droughtoccurrence, identify varying levels of drought risk.

3. Task 3: Ranking Impacts

After each working group has completed the checklist in Table1, the unchecked impacts should be omitted. This new listwill contain the relevant drought impacts for your location oractivity. From this list, prioritize impacts according to whatwork group members consider to be the most important. Tobe effective and equitable, the ranking should consider con-cerns such as cost, areal extent, trends over time, public


112 Wilhite et al.

T

ABLE

1

Checklist of Historical, Current, and Potential Drought

Impacts

To perform an assessment using this checklist, check the box in front of each category that has been affected by drought in your study area. Your selections can be based on common or extreme droughts, or a combination of the two. For example, if your drought planning was going to be based on the “drought of record,” you would need to complete a historical review to identify the drought of record for your area and assess the impacts of that drought. You would then record the impacts on this checklist by marking the appropriate boxes under the “historical” column. Next, with the knowledge you have about your local area, if another drought of record were to occur tomorrow, consider what the local impacts may be and record them on the checklist under the “current” column. Finally, consider possible impacts of the same drought for your area in 5 or 10 years and record these in the “potential” column.

If enough time, money, and personnel are available, it may be beneficial to conduct impact studies based on common droughts, extreme droughts, and the drought of record for your region. These analyses would yield a range of impacts related to the severity of the drought, which is necessary for conducting Step 3 of the guide and could be useful for planning purposes.

H = historical droughtC = current droughtP = potential drought

H C P Economic Impacts

Loss from crop production

� � �

Annual and perennial crop losses

� � �

Damage to crop quality

� � �

Reduced productivity of cropland (wind erosion, etc.)

� � �

Insect infestation

� � �

Plant disease

� � �

Wildlife damage to cropsLoss from dairy and livestock production

� � �

Reduced productivity of rangeland

� � �

Forced reduction of foundation stock

� � �

Closure/limitation of public lands to grazing

� � �

High cost/unavailability of water for livestock

� � �

High cost/unavailability of feed for livestock

� � �

High livestock mortality rates

� � �

Disruption of reproduction cycles (breeding delays or unfilled pregnancies)



T

ABLE

1


Impacts (continued)

� � �

Decreased stock weights

� � �

Increased predation

� � �

Range firesLoss from timber production

� � �

Wildland fires

� � �

Tree disease

� � �

Impaired productivity of forest landLoss from fishery production

� � �

Damage to fish habitat

� � �

Loss of young fish due to decreased flows

� � �

Income loss for farmers and others directly affected

� � �

Loss of farmers through bankruptcy

� � �

Unemployment from drought-related production declines

� � �

Loss to recreational and tourism industry

� � �

Loss to manufacturers and sellers of recreational equipment

� � �

Increased energy demand and reduced supply because of drought-related power curtailments

� � �

Costs to energy industry and consumers associated with substituting more expensive fuels (oil) for hydroelectric power

� � �

Loss to industries directly dependent on agricultural production (e.g., machinery and fertilizer manufacturers, food processors, etc.)Decline in food production/disrupted food supply

� � �

Increase in food prices

� � �

Increased importation of food (higher costs)

� � �

Disruption of water suppliesRevenue to water supply firms

� � �

Revenue shortfalls

� � �

Windfall profits

� � �

Strain on financial institutions (foreclosures, greater credit risks, capital shortfalls, etc.)

� � �

Revenue losses to federal, state, and local governments (from reduced tax base)

� � �

Loss from impaired navigability of streams, rivers, and canals

� � �

Cost of water transport or transfer


114 Wilhite et al.

T

ABLE

1


Impacts (continued)

� � �

Cost of new or supplemental water resource development

� � �

Cost of increased groundwater depletion (mining), land subsidence

� � �

Reduction of economic development

� � �

Decreased land pricesDamage to animal species

� � �

Reduction and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat

� � �

Lack of feed and drinking water

� � �

Disease� � � Increased vulnerability to predation (from species

concentration near water)� � � Migration and concentration (loss of wildlife in

some areas and too many in others)� � � Increased stress to endangered species

H C P Environmental Impacts

� � � Damage to plant species� � � Increased number and severity of fires� � � Loss of wetlands� � � Estuarine impacts (e.g., changes in salinity levels)� � � Increased groundwater depletion, land subsidence� � � Loss of biodiversity� � � Wind and water erosion of soils� � � Reservoir and lake levels� � � Reduced flow from springs� � � Water quality effects (e.g., salt concentration, increased

water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity)� � � Air quality effects (e.g., dust, pollutants)� � � Visual and landscape quality (e.g., dust, vegetative

cover, etc.)

H C P Social Impacts

� � � Mental and physical stress (e.g., anxiety, depression, loss of security, domestic violence)

� � � Health-related low-flow problems (e.g., cross-connection contamination, diminished sewage flows, increased pollutant concentrations, reduced firefighting capability, etc.)



TABLE 1 Checklist of Historical, Current, and Potential Drought Impacts (continued)

� � � Reductions in nutrition (e.g., high-cost-food limitations, stress-related dietary deficiencies)

� � � Loss of human life (e.g., from heat stress, suicides)� � � Public safety from forest and range fires� � � Increased respiratory ailments� � � Increased disease caused by wildlife concentrations

Increased conflicts� � � Water user conflicts� � � Political conflicts� � � Management conflicts� � � Other social conflicts (e.g., scientific, media based)� � � Disruption of cultural belief systems (e.g., religious and

scientific views of natural hazards)� � � Reevaluation of social values (e.g., priorities, needs,

rights)� � � Reduction or modification of recreational activities� � � Public dissatisfaction with government regarding

drought response� � � Inequity in the distribution of drought relief

Inequity in drought impacts based on:� � � Socioeconomic group� � � Ethnicity� � � Age� � � Gender� � � Seniority� � � Loss of cultural sites� � � Loss of aesthetic values� � � Recognition of institutional restraints on water use

Reduced quality of life, changes in lifestyle� � � In rural areas� � � In specific urban areas� � � Increased poverty in general� � � Increased data/information needs, coordination of

dissemination activities� � � Population migrations (e.g., rural to urban areas,

migrants into the United States)


116 Wilhite et al.

opinion, fairness, and the ability of the affected area torecover. Be aware that social and environmental impacts areoften difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Each work groupshould complete a preliminary ranking of impacts. Thedrought task force and other work groups can participate ina plenary discussion of these rankings following the initialranking iterations. We recommend constructing a matrix (seean example in Table 2) to help prioritize impacts. From thislist of prioritized impacts, each working group should decidewhich impacts should be addressed and which can bedeferred.

4. Task 4: Vulnerability Assessment

Vulnerability assessment provides a framework for identi-fying the social, economic, and environmental causes ofdrought impacts. It bridges the gap between impact assess-ment and policy formulation by directing policy attention tounderlying causes of vulnerability rather than the result,the negative impacts, which follow triggering events such asdrought (Ribot et al., 1996). For example, the direct impactof precipitation deficiencies may be a reduction of crop yields.The underlying cause of this vulnerability, however, may bethat the farmers did not use drought-resistant seeds,because they did not believe in their usefulness, the costswere too high, or there was some commitment to culturalbeliefs. Another example could be farm foreclosure. Theunderlying causes of this vulnerability might include small

TABLE 2 Drought Impact Decision Matrix

Impact CostEqually

Distributed? Growing?Public

Priority?Equitable Recovery?

Impact Rank



farm size because of historical land appropriation policies,lack of credit for diversification options, farming on marginallands, limited knowledge of possible farming options, a lackof local industry for off-farm supplemental income, or gov-ernment policies. Therefore, for each of the identifiedimpacts from Table 1, begin asking why these impacts haveoccurred or might occur. It is important to realize that acombination of factors might produce a given impact. Itmight be beneficial to display these causal relationships insome form of a tree diagram (see examples in Figures 4 and5). Figure 4 demonstrates a typical agricultural example andFigure 5 a potential urban scenario. Depending on the levelof analysis, this process can quickly become somewhat com-plicated, which is why working groups must be composed of

Figure 4 An example of a simplified agricultural impact tree dia-gram. (Notice the boldface items represent the basal causes of thelisted impact. Although these items may be broken down further,this example illustrates the vulnerability assessment process.)(Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University ofNebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.)

Income Loss Due to Crop FailureWhy did you have income losses from crop failure?

Lackof waterWHY?

Climate

Otherseeds areexpensive

Farmerpreference

Governmentincentives

No droughtwarning

Lack of research andrelief program coordination

NoIrrigation

Poor cropselectionWHY?

Too slowWHY?

Lack of crop insuranceWhy the lack ofcrop insurance?

Crop failureWhy the crop failure?

Inadequacy of reliefassistance

Why inadequacyof relief assistance?

High Cost Inefficient“blanket

coverage”WHY?

Conflictingrelief programs

WHY?


118 Wilhite et al.

the appropriate mix of people. Table 3 lists many factorsthat typically make an area vulnerable to drought; theseshould be considered when forming tree diagrams.

The tree diagrams illustrate the complexity of understand-ing drought impacts. The two examples provided are not meantto be comprehensive or represent an actual location. Basically,their main purpose is to demonstrate that impacts must beexamined from several perspectives to expose their true under-lying causes. For this assessment, the lowest causes on the treediagrams, the items in boldface, will be referred to as basalcauses. These basal causes are the items that have the potentialto be acted on to reduce the associated impact. Of course, someof these impact causes should not or cannot be acted on for awide variety of reasons (discussed in Step 5).

5. Task 5: Action Identification

Mitigation is defined as actions taken in advance of or in theearly stages of drought that reduce the impacts of the event.

Figure 5 An example of a simplified urban impact tree diagram.(Notice the boldface items represent the basal causes of the listedimpact [in this case, the loss of tourism revenue]. Although theseitems may be broken down further, this example illustrates thevulnerability assessment process.) (Source: National Drought Mit-igation Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.)

Loss of Tourism RevenueWhy was there lost revenue?

Reduction of golfcourse revenue

Why did they lose revenue?

Poor course conditionsWHY?

Fewer dailygolfersWHY?

Cancellation oftournaments

WHY?

Reduction of reservoir-based tourismWhy the reduction in reservoir revenue?

Low attendanceWHY?

Reducedwater quality

Reducedprecipitation

Non-essentialuse restriction

High water usecourse design

Lack of waterWHY?

Too muchrelease

Too muchdemand

Low reservoirlevelsWHY?

Loss ofaesthetic value


Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 119T

AB

LE 3

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Con

side

rati

on

Wat

er S

hor

tage

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Con

tin

uu

mH

igh

er V

uln

erab

ilit

yL

ower

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Met

eoro

logi

cal

drou

ght

Wid

e pr

ecip

itat

ion

var

iati

onS

tabl

e pr

ecip

itat

ion

pat

tern

Lac

k of

dat

a/si

ngl

e-so

urc

e da

taG

ood

lon

g-te

rm d

ata/

mu

ltip

le s

ourc

es o

f da

taP

assi

ve d

rou

ght

“acc

epta

nce

”A

dvan

ce w

arn

ing

Lon

ger

dura

tion

Sh

orte

r du

rati

onH

igh

er s

ever

ity

shor

tage

Low

er s

ever

ity

shor

tage

Su

dden

ch

ange

in

su

pply

G

radu

al c

han

ges

in s

upp

lyS

upp

ly-a

nd-

dem

and

bala

nce

or

“in

stit

uti

onal

dro

ugh

t”S

ingl

e w

ater

sou

rce

or l

ow s

upp

ly

reli

abil

ity

Mu

ltip

le w

ater

sou

rces

or

hig

h s

upp

ly

reli

abil

ity

Low

-pri

orit

y w

ater

rig

hts

or

low

co

ntr

actu

al r

igh

tsS

enio

r w

ater

rig

hts

or

hig

h c

ontr

actu

al

righ

tsW

ater

su

pply

at

risk

fro

m c

onta

min

atio

nP

rote

cted

wat

er s

upp

lyIm

port

ed w

ater

su

ppli

esL

ocal

su

ppli

es a

nd

loca

lly

con

trol

led

Su

bjec

t to

oth

er n

atu

ral

disa

ster

sL

ow l

ikel

ihoo

d of

oth

er n

atu

ral

disa

ster

sW

ater

use

pat

tern

sH

igh

-gro

wth

are

a/h

igh

add

itio

nal

de

man

dS

tabl

e or

dec

reas

ing

wat

er d

eman

d

Hig

h p

erce

nt

wat

er u

se i

mpr

ovem

ents

re

quir

es e

arli

er d

eman

d m

anag

emen

t re

spon

se

Low

per

cen

t w

ater

use

/effi

cien

cy im

prov

es

“sla

ck”

in s

yste

m =

req

uir

es m

ore

dem

and

man

agem

ent

resp

onse

Lan

dsca

pe/a

g ir

riga

tion

usu

al p

ract

ices

or

lan

dsca

pe/a

g de

pen

den

ce o

n

prec

ipit

atio

n

“Cli

mat

e-ap

prop

riat

e” p

lan

ts o

r n

onir

riga

ted

agri

cult

ure

/gra

zin

g

Pre

pare

dnes

sW

ait

un

til

shor

tage

is

“dec

lare

d” (

or

beyo

nd

…)

Ear

ly s

hor

tage

res

pon

se


120 Wilhite et al.T

AB

LE 3

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Con

side

rati

on (

con

tin

ued

)

Wat

er S

hor

tage

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Con

tin

uu

mH

igh

er V

uln

erab

ilit

yL

ower

Vu

lner

abil

ity

Lac

k of

pol

itic

al w

ill

Lea

ders

hip

Ign

orin

g si

tuat

ion

/abd

icat

ing

resp

onsi

bili

tyP

repa

redn

ess/

acti

ons

to p

rote

ct

com

mu

nit

y/ec

onom

y/en

viro

nm

ent

Non

inte

rcon

nec

ted

wat

er s

upp

ly s

yste

ms

or n

onco

llab

orat

ive

appr

oach

wit

h

nei

ghbo

rs

Coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith

oth

ers

(i.e

., n

eigh

bori

ng

wat

er, d

isas

ter

resp

onse

an

d fi

re

agen

cies

, mu

tual

aid

agr

eem

ents

, etc

.)R

even

ue/

rate

in

stab

ilit

yR

ate

stab

iliz

atio

n f

un

d“K

nee

jer

k” r

atio

nin

gP

rede

term

ined

an

d eq

uit

able

all

ocat

ion

m

eth

ods

Lit

tle

publ

ic a

war

enes

sH

igh

com

mu

nit

y in

volv

emen

t (f

rom

all

so

cial

an

d ec

onom

ic s

ecto

rs)

Sou

rce:

D. B

rave

r, pe

rson

al c

omm

un

icat

ion

, 199

7.



Once the group has set drought impact priorities and exposedthe corresponding underlying causes of vulnerability, it canidentify actions appropriate for reducing drought risk. Thematrix lists the impact as well as the described basal causesof the impact. From this point, the working group shouldinvestigate what actions could be taken to address each ofthese basal causes. The following sequence of questions maybe helpful in identifying potential actions:

• Can the basal cause be mitigated (can it be modifiedbefore a drought)? If yes, then how?

• Can the basal cause be responded to (can it be modifiedduring or after a drought)? If so, then how?

• Is there some basal cause, or aspect of the basal cause,that cannot be modified and must be accepted as adrought-related risk for this activity or area?

A list of potential actions to mitigate drought is availableat http://drought.unl.edu/plan/handbook/risk.pdf. As willbe discussed in the next section (Task 6), not all ideas areappropriate in all cases. Many of the ideas are more in therealm of short-term emergency response, or crisis manage-ment, rather than long-term mitigation, or risk management.Emergency response is an important component of droughtplanning, but it should be only one part of a more compre-hensive mitigation strategy.

6. Task 6: Developing the “To Do” List

After the group identifies the impacts, causes, and relevantpotential actions, the next step is to determine the sequenceof actions to take as part of the risk reduction planning exer-cise. This selection should be based on such concerns as fea-sibility, effectiveness, cost, and equity. Additionally, it will beimportant to review the impact tree diagrams when consid-ering which groups of actions need to be considered together.For example, if you wanted to reduce crop losses by promotingthe use of a different type of seed, it probably would not beeffective to educate farmers on the benefits of the new variety


122 Wilhite et al.

if it is too expensive or there are government incentives forplanting other crops.

In choosing the appropriate actions, you may want to asksome of the following questions:

• What are the cost/benefit ratios for the actions identi-fied?

• Which actions do the general public consider feasibleand appropriate?

• Which actions are sensitive to the local environment(i.e., sustainable practices)?

• Do the actions address the right combination of causesto adequately reduce the relevant impact?

• Do the actions address short- and long-term solutions?• Which actions would fairly represent the needs of

affected individuals and groups?

This process has the potential to lead to the identification ofeffective and appropriate drought risk reduction activitiesthat may reduce future drought impacts.

7. Completion of Risk Analysis

Following Task 6, the risk analysis is finished. Remember,this is a planning process, so it will be necessary to periodi-cally reevaluate drought risk and the various mitigationactions identified. Step 10 in the planning process is associ-ated with evaluating, testing, and revising the drought plan.After a severe drought episode would be an appropriate timeto revisit mitigation actions in association with an analysisof lessons learned.

C. Mitigation and Response Committee

Mitigation and response actions may be the responsibility ofthe drought task force or be assigned to a separate committee.It is recommended that the task force, working in cooperationwith the monitoring and risk assessment committees, has theknowledge and experience to understand drought mitigationtechniques, risk analysis (economic, environmental, and socialaspects), and drought-related decision-making processes at



all levels of government. The task force, as originally defined,is composed of senior policy makers from various governmentagencies and, possibly, key stakeholder groups. Therefore, itis in an excellent position to recommend or implement miti-gation actions, request assistance through various federalprograms, or make policy recommendations to a legislativebody or political leader.

Mitigation and response actions should be determinedfor each of the principal impact sectors identified by the riskassessment committee. Wilhite (1997) assessed drought mit-igation technologies implemented by U.S. states in responseto drought conditions during the late 1980s and early 1990s.The transferability of these technologies to specific settingsor locations needs to be evaluated further. These droughttechnologies are available on the NDMC’s website(http://drought.unl.edu/mitigate/mitigate.htm).

The State of Georgia recently developed a drought man-agement plan and identified a broad range of pre-droughtmitigation strategies that could be used to lessen the state’svulnerability to future drought events. These strategies aredivided by sector into municipal and industrial, agriculture,and water quality. Selected examples of these actions areprovided in Table 4. These examples illustrate the types ofactions identified by states that have recently completed thedrought mitigation planning process.

Tribal governments in the United States, many of whichare located in extremely drought-prone areas, are also pursu-ing development of drought mitigation plans. For example, theHopi Nation followed the 10-step guidelines and the NDMC’srisk assessment methodology (Knutson et al., 1998) in its plandevelopment process. The plan is pending approval throughthe U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which provided funding forits development. The vulnerability analysis revealed four sec-tors of concern: range and livestock, agriculture, village watersupplies, and environmental health. A unique feature of theHopi drought plan is the inclusion of current and proposedmonitoring systems to evaluate climatic conditions, soil, veg-etation, and water resources for farming, ranching, and domes-tic purposes. The drought plan describes establishing a


124 Wilhite et al.T

AB

LE 4

Su

mm

ary

of S

elec

ted

Pre

-Dro

ugh

t S

trat

egie

s In

clu

ded

in t

he

Geo

rgia

Dro

ugh

t M

anag

emen

t P

lan

MU

NIC

IPA

L A

ND

IN

DU

ST

RIA

LS

tate

Act

ion

sA

GR

ICU

LT

UR

EF

arm

er I

rrig

ati

on E

du

cati

onW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

, F

LO

RA

, A

ND

FA

UN

AS

tate

Act

ion

s

For

mal

ize

the

Dro

ugh

t R

espo

nse

C

omm

itte

e as

a m

ean

s of

ex

pedi

tin

g co

mm

un

icat

ion

s am

ong

stat

e, l

ocal

, an

d fe

dera

l ag

enci

es

and

non

gove

rnm

enta

l en

titi

es.

Rec

omm

end

that

far

mer

s at

ten

d cl

asse

s in

bes

t m

anag

emen

t pr

acti

ces

(BM

P)

and

con

serv

atio

n

irri

gati

on b

efor

e (i

) re

ceiv

ing

a pe

rmit

, (ii

) u

sin

g a

new

irr

igat

ion

sy

stem

, or

(iii

) ir

riga

tin

g fo

r a

com

ing

ann

oun

ced

drou

ght

seas

on.

En

cou

rage

all

res

pon

sibl

e ag

enci

es t

o pr

omot

e vo

lun

tary

wat

er

con

serv

atio

n t

hro

ugh

a w

ide

ran

ge

of a

ctiv

itie

s.

Est

abli

sh a

dro

ugh

t co

mm

un

icat

ion

s sy

stem

s be

twee

n t

he

stat

e an

d lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

an

d w

ater

sy

stem

s.

Pro

vide

con

tin

uin

g ed

uca

tion

op

port

un

itie

s fo

r fa

rmer

s.M

onit

or s

trea

mfl

ow a

nd

prec

ipit

atio

n

at s

elec

ted

loca

tion

s on

cri

tica

l st

ream

s.

Pro

vide

gu

idan

ce t

o th

e lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

an

d w

ater

su

pply

pr

ovid

ers

on l

ong-

term

wat

er

supp

ly, c

onse

rvat

ion

an

d dr

ough

t co

nti

nge

ncy

pla

nn

ing.

En

cou

rage

th

e u

se o

f B

MP

s,

con

serv

atio

n i

rrig

atio

n, e

ffici

ent

use

of

irri

gati

on s

yste

ms,

an

d th

e C

oope

rati

ve E

xten

sion

Ser

vice

’s

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

gu

idel

ines

.

Mon

itor

wat

er q

ual

ity

para

met

ers,

su

ch a

s te

mpe

ratu

re a

nd

diss

olve

d ox

ygen

at

sele

cted

cri

tica

l st

ream

s.

Rev

iew

th

e lo

cal

gove

rnm

ents

an

d w

ater

su

pply

pro

vide

rs’

con

serv

atio

n a

nd

drou

ght

con

tin

gen

cy p

lan

s.

Dev

elop

ele

ctro

nic

dat

abas

e fo

r co

mm

un

icat

ing

wit

h w

ater

use

pe

rmit

hol

ders

.

Pro

vide

th

e st

ream

flow

an

d w

ater

-qu

alit

y da

ta in

rea

l tim

e fo

r u

se b

y dr

ough

t m

anag

ers

and

wor

k w

ith

dr

ough

t m

anag

ers

to o

ptim

ize

info

rmat

ion

del

iver

y an

d u

se.


Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 125W

ork

wit

h t

he

golf

cou

rse

and

turf

in

dust

ry t

o es

tabl

ish

cri

teri

a fo

r dr

ough

t-to

lera

nt

golf

cou

rses

.

En

cou

rage

dev

elop

men

t an

d di

stri

buti

on o

f in

form

atio

n o

n

wat

er e

ffici

ent

irri

gati

on

tech

niq

ues

.

Eva

luat

e th

e im

pact

of

wat

er

wit

hdr

awal

s on

flow

pat

tern

s, a

nd

the

impa

ct o

f w

aste

wat

er

disc

har

ges

on w

ater

qu

alit

y du

rin

g dr

ough

t.E

nco

ura

ge w

ater

re-

use

.F

ield

/Cro

p T

ype

Ma

na

gem

ent

Inve

stig

ate

indi

cato

rs a

nd

deve

lop

tool

s to

an

alyz

e dr

ough

t im

pact

s fo

r w

ater

way

s su

ch a

s co

asta

l ec

osys

tem

s, t

her

mal

ref

uge

s su

ch

as t

he

Fli

nt

Riv

er, a

nd

trou

t st

ream

s.

En

cou

rage

th

e u

se o

f m

ore

drou

ght-

resi

stan

t cr

ops.

Pro

vide

wat

er e

ffici

ency

edu

cati

on fo

r in

dust

ry a

nd

busi

nes

s.E

nco

ura

ge t

he

use

of

inn

ovat

ive

cult

ivat

ion

tec

hn

iqu

es t

o re

duce

cr

op w

ater

use

.

Impr

ove

the

agen

cies

’ cap

abil

itie

s an

d re

sou

rces

to

mon

itor

lan

d-di

stu

rbin

g ac

tivi

ties

th

at m

igh

t re

sult

in e

rosi

on a

nd

sedi

men

tati

on

viol

atio

ns.

Con

duct

vol

un

tary

wat

er a

udi

ts f

or

busi

nes

ses

that

use

wat

er f

or

prod

uct

ion

of

a pr

odu

ct o

r se

rvic

e.

Con

duct

cro

p ir

riga

tion

effi

cien

cy

stu

dies

.Id

enti

fy f

un

din

g m

ech

anis

ms

and

deve

lop

resc

ue

and

rein

trod

uct

ion

pr

otoc

ols

for

thre

aten

ed a

nd

enda

nge

red

spec

ies

duri

ng

extr

eme

even

ts.

Iden

tify

vu

lner

able

wat

er-d

epen

den

t in

dust

ries

, fu

nd

rese

arch

to

hel

p de

term

ine

impa

cts

and

impr

ove

pred

icti

ve c

apab

ilit

ies.

Pro

vide

far

mer

s w

ith

nor

mal

yea

r, re

al t

ime

irri

gati

on, i

rrig

atio

n

sch

edu

lin

g, a

nd

crop

ev

apor

atio

n/t

ran

spir

atio

n

info

rmat

ion

.

Dev

elop

an

d ex

ecu

te a

n e

ffor

t to

id

enti

fy p

ollu

tan

t lo

ad r

edu

ctio

n

oppo

rtu

nit

ies

by w

aste

wat

er

disc

har

ge p

erm

it h

olde

rs.


126 Wilhite et al.T

AB

LE 4

Su

mm

ary

of S

elec

ted

Pre

-Dro

ugh

t S

trat

egie

s In

clu

ded

in t

he

Geo

rgia

Dro

ugh

t M

anag

emen

t P

lan

(c

onti

nu

ed)

MU

NIC

IPA

L A

ND

IN

DU

ST

RIA

LS

tate

Act

ion

sA

GR

ICU

LT

UR

EF

arm

er I

rrig

ati

on E

du

cati

onW

AT

ER

QU

AL

ITY

, F

LO

RA

, A

ND

FA

UN

AS

tate

Act

ion

s

Dev

elop

an

d im

plem

ent

a st

atew

ide

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

pro

gram

to

enco

ura

ge l

ocal

an

d re

gion

al

con

serv

atio

n m

easu

res.

Irri

gati

on E

quip

men

t M

anag

emen

tE

valu

ate

the

impa

ct o

f w

ater

w

ith

draw

als

on fl

ow r

egim

es a

nd

the

impa

ct o

f w

aste

wat

er

disc

har

ges

on w

ater

qu

alit

y du

rin

g dr

ough

t.

En

cou

rage

th

e in

stal

lati

on o

f w

ater

-ef

fici

ent

irri

gati

on t

ech

nol

ogy.

Dev

elop

an

d im

plem

ent

an i

nce

nti

ve

prog

ram

to

enco

ura

ge m

ore

effi

cien

t u

se o

f ex

isti

ng

wat

er

supp

lies

.

Ret

rofi

t ol

der

irri

gati

on s

yste

ms

wit

h

new

er a

nd

bett

er i

rrig

atio

n

tech

nol

ogy.

Upd

ate

any

syst

em

mor

e th

an 1

0 ye

ars

old.

Dev

elop

an

d pr

omot

e im

plem

enta

tion

of

su

stai

nab

le l

awn

car

e pr

ogra

ms

base

d on

sel

ecte

d B

MP

s an

d/or

in

tegr

ated

pes

t m

anag

emen

t pr

acti

ces.

Loc

al/

Reg

ion

al

Act

ion

sE

nco

ura

ge fa

rmer

s to

take

adv

anta

ge

of a

vail

able

fin

anci

al in

cen

tive

s fo

r re

trofi

ttin

g an

d u

pdat

ing

olde

r or

le

ss e

ffici

ent

syst

ems.

En

cou

rage

pro

tect

ion

an

d re

stor

atio

n

of v

eget

ated

str

eam

bu

ffer

s,

incl

udi

ng

ince

nti

ves

for

prop

erty

ow

ner

s to

mai

nta

in b

uff

ers

wid

er

than

th

e m

inim

um

req

uir

ed b

y st

ate

law

.

Dev

elop

an

d im

plem

ent

a dr

ough

t m

anag

emen

t an

d co

nse

rvat

ion

pl

an.

Ass

ess

and

clas

sify

dro

ugh

t vu

lner

abil

ity

of i

ndi

vidu

al w

ater

sy

stem

s.

Rec

omm

end

irri

gati

on s

yste

m

effi

cien

cy a

udi

ts e

very

5 t

o 7

year

s.P

rovi

de f

or p

rote

ctio

n o

f re

char

ge

area

s th

rou

gh m

easu

res

incl

udi

ng

lan

d pu

rch

ase

or a

cqu

isit

ion

of

ease

men

ts.


Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 127D

efin

e pr

edet

erm

ined

dro

ugh

t re

spon

ses,

wit

h o

utd

oor

wat

erin

g re

stri

ctio

ns

bein

g at

lea

st a

s re

stri

ctiv

e as

th

e st

ate’

s m

inim

um

re

quir

emen

ts.

Gov

ern

men

t P

rogr

am

sE

nco

ura

ge a

nd

expl

ore

wil

dlan

d fi

re

mit

igat

ion

mea

sure

s.Im

prov

e ir

riga

tion

per

mit

dat

a to

cr

eate

a h

igh

deg

ree

of c

onfi

den

ce

in t

he

info

rmat

ion

on

ow

ner

ship

, lo

cati

on, s

yste

m t

ype,

wat

er

sou

rce,

pu

mp

capa

city

, an

d ac

res

irri

gate

d fo

r al

l irr

igat

ion

sys

tem

s to

det

erm

ine

wh

ich

wat

ersh

eds

and

aqu

ifer

s w

ill

be s

tron

gly

affe

cted

by

agri

cult

ura

l wat

er u

se,

espe

cial

ly i

n d

rou

ghts

.E

stab

lish

a d

rou

ght

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

syst

em fr

om lo

cal g

over

nm

ents

an

d w

ater

su

pply

sys

tem

s to

the

publ

ic.

Impr

ove

on t

he

agri

cult

ure

irri

gati

on

wat

er m

easu

rem

ent

and

acco

un

tin

g st

atew

ide.

En

han

ce p

rogr

ams

to a

ssis

t la

ndo

wn

ers

and

farm

ers

wit

h

outd

oor

burn

ing.

Impr

ove

com

mu

nic

atio

ns

and

coop

erat

ion

am

ong

farm

ers

and

rele

van

t sta

te a

nd

fede

ral a

gen

cies

re

gard

ing

avai

labl

e as

sist

ance

du

rin

g dr

ough

t co

ndi

tion

s.S

upp

ort

legi

slat

ion

an

d ef

fort

s to

en

han

ce t

he

abil

ity

of f

arm

ers

to

secu

re a

dequ

ate

wat

er s

upp

lies

du

rin

g dr

ough

t co

ndi

tion

s.

Sou

rce:

Geo

rgia

Dep

artm

ent

of N

atu

ral

Res

ourc

es (

2003

).


128 Wilhite et al.

network of approximately 60 transects to provide a detailedanalysis of range conditions. The transects will be selected torepresent major climates, soils, water resources, and land usespresent on the Hopi reservation and will help identify trendsin vegetation health. These monitoring networks will not onlyhelp monitor and quantify the drought impacts, but also beused to assess the effectiveness of any mitigation actions thatare implemented.

As was the case with the Georgia plan cited above, theHopi drought plan developed a list of short- and long-termdrought mitigation and response actions for each impact area.For example, to mitigate range and livestock losses, the plansuggests that range management plans be completed for eachrange unit. To facilitate rotations and proper use of range-lands, the Hopi range management plan also includes fencingand water development projects for the unit range manage-ment plans. Water availability in these units will be improvedthrough a combination of rehabilitating surface waterimpoundments, additional wells at key locations, improvedwater distribution from the supply point to multiple stockwatering troughs, and other conjunctive uses. The Hopi plan-ners hope these mitigation actions will decrease the vulner-ability of the range and livestock economic sector.

In addition to identifying mitigation actions that willreduce the tribe’s drought risk, the Hopi drought plan isunique in that it identifies the responsible agencies, providesa timeline to complete the actions, and proposes a cost esti-mate for these actions. For example, a cost of $12 million isestimated to upgrade the water supply systems of 12 tribalvillages by improving pumping capacity, storage tank size,and pipe capacity. The tribe plans to seek funding for theseactions through a variety of agencies and sources whileenhancing water conservation at the same time.

Before the onset of drought, the task force should inven-tory all forms of assistance available from governmental andnongovernmental authorities during severe drought. The taskforce should evaluate these programs for their ability toaddress short-term emergency situations and long-term miti-



gation programs for their ability to reduce risk to drought.Assistance should be defined in a very broad way to include allforms of technical, mitigation, and relief programs available.

D. Writing the Plan

With input from each of the committees and working groups,the drought task force, with the assistance of professionalwriting specialists, will draft the drought plan. After comple-tion of a working draft, we recommend holding public meet-ings or hearings at several locations to explain the purpose,scope, and operational characteristics of the plan. You mustalso discuss the specific mitigation actions and response mea-sures recommended in the plan. A public information special-ist for the drought task force can facilitate planning for thehearings and prepare news stories to announce the meetingsand provide an overview of the plan.

As mentioned previously, the plan should not be consid-ered a static document. The plan is dynamic. A copy of theplan should be available through the drought task force web-site and in hard copy form for distribution.

VIII. STEP 6: IDENTIFY RESEARCH NEEDS AND FILL INSTITUTIONAL GAPS

As research needs and gaps in institutional responsibilitybecome apparent during drought planning, the drought taskforce should compile a list of those deficiencies and make rec-ommendations to the appropriate person or government bodyon how to remedy them. You must perform Step 6 concurrentlywith Steps 4 and 5. For example, the monitoring committeemay recommend establishing an automated weather stationnetwork or initiating research on the development of a climateor water supply index to help monitor water supplies and trig-ger specific actions by state government.


130 Wilhite et al.

IX. STEP 7: INTEGRATE SCIENCE AND POLICY

An essential aspect of the planning process is integrating thescience and policy of drought management. The policy maker’sunderstanding of the scientific issues and technical con-straints involved in addressing problems associated withdrought is often limited. Likewise, scientists generally havea poor understanding of existing policy constraints forresponding to the impacts of drought. In many cases, commu-nication and understanding between the science and policycommunities must be enhanced if the planning process is tobe successful.

Good communication is required between the two groupsin order to distinguish what is feasible from what is notachievable for a broad range of science and policy issues.Integration of science and policy during the planning processwill also be useful in setting research priorities and synthe-sizing current understanding. The drought task force shouldconsider various alternatives to bring these groups togetherand maintain a strong working relationship.

X. STEP 8: PUBLICIZE THE DROUGHT PLAN—BUILD PUBLIC AWARENESS AND CONSENSUS

If you have communicated well with the public throughoutthe process of establishing a drought plan, there may alreadybe better-than-normal awareness of drought and droughtplanning by the time you actually write the plan. Themes toemphasize in writing news stories during and after thedrought planning process could include:

• How the drought plan is expected to relieve droughtimpacts in both the short and long term. Stories canfocus on the human dimensions of drought, such ashow it affects a farm family; on its environmentalconsequences, such as reduced wildlife habitat; and onits economic effects, such as the costs to a particularindustry or to the state or region’s overall economy.



• What changes people might be asked to make inresponse to different degrees of drought, such asrestricted lawn watering and car washing or not irri-gating certain crops at certain times.

In subsequent years, you may want to do “drought planrefresher” news releases at the beginning of the most drought-sensitive season, letting people know whether there is pres-sure on water supplies or reason to believe shortfalls willoccur later in the season, and reminding them of the plan’sexistence, history, and any associated success stories. It maybe useful to refresh people’s memories about circumstancesthat would lead to water use restrictions.

During drought, the task force should work with publicinformation professionals to keep the public well informed ofthe status of water supplies, whether conditions are approach-ing “trigger points” that will lead to requests for voluntary ormandatory use restrictions, and how victims of drought canaccess assistance. Post all pertinent information on thedrought task force’s website so that the public can get infor-mation directly from the task force without having to rely onmass media.

XI. STEP 9: DEVELOP EDUCATION PROGRAMS

A broad-based education program to raise awareness of short-and long-term water supply issues will help ensure that peopleknow how to respond to drought when it occurs and thatdrought planning does not lose ground during non-droughtyears. Try to tailor information to the needs of specific groups(e.g., elementary and secondary education, small business,industry, homeowners, utilities). The drought task force or par-ticipating agencies should consider developing presentationsand educational materials for events such as a water awarenessweek, community observations of Earth Day, relevant tradeshows, specialized workshops, and other gatherings that focuson natural resource stewardship or management.


132 Wilhite et al.

XII. STEP 10: EVALUATE AND REVISE DROUGHT PLAN

The final step in the planning process is to create a detailedset of procedures to ensure adequate plan evaluation. Periodictesting, evaluation, and updating of the drought plan areessential to keep the plan responsive to local, state, provincial,or national needs. To maximize the effectiveness of the sys-tem, you must include two modes of evaluation: ongoing andpost-drought.

A. Ongoing Evaluation

An ongoing or operational evaluation keeps track of how soci-etal changes such as new technology, new research, new laws,and changes in political leadership may affect drought riskand the operational aspects of the drought plan. Drought riskmay be evaluated quite frequently whereas the overalldrought plan may be evaluated less often. We recommend anevaluation under simulated drought conditions (i.e., droughtexercise) before the drought plan is implemented and period-ically thereafter. Remember that drought planning is a pro-cess, not a discrete event.

B. Post-Drought Evaluation

A post-drought evaluation or audit documents and analyzesthe assessment and response actions of government, nongov-ernmental organizations, and others and provides a mecha-nism to implement recommendations for improving thesystem. Without post-drought evaluations, it is difficult tolearn from past successes and mistakes, as institutional mem-ory fades.

Post-drought evaluations should include an analysis ofthe climatic and environmental aspects of the drought; itseconomic and social consequences; the extent to which pre-drought planning was useful in mitigating impacts, in facili-tating relief or assistance to stricken areas, and in post-recov-ery; and any other weaknesses or problems caused by or not



covered by the plan. Attention must also be directed to situ-ations in which drought-coping mechanisms worked andwhere societies exhibited resilience; evaluations should notfocus only on those situations in which coping mechanismsfailed. Evaluations of previous responses to severe droughtare also a good planning aid.

To ensure an unbiased appraisal, governments may wishto place the responsibility for evaluating drought and societalresponse to it in the hands of nongovernmental organizationssuch as universities or specialized research institutes.

XIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

For the most part, previous responses to drought in all partsof the world have been reactive, representing the crisis man-agement approach. This approach has been ineffective (i.e.,assistance poorly targeted to specific impacts or populationgroups), poorly coordinated, and untimely; more important,it has done little to reduce the risks associated with drought.In fact, the economic, social, and environmental impacts ofdrought have increased significantly in recent decades. A sim-ilar trend exists for all natural hazards.

This chapter presents a planning process that has beenused at all levels of government to guide the development ofa drought mitigation plan. The goal of this planning processis to significantly change the way we prepare for and respondto drought by placing greater emphasis on risk managementand the adoption of appropriate mitigation actions. The 10steps included in this process are generic so that governmentscan choose the steps and components that are most applicableto their situation. The risk assessment methodology isdesigned to guide governments through the process of evalu-ating and prioritizing impacts and identifying mitigationactions and tools that can be used to reduce these impacts forfuture drought episodes. Drought planning must be viewedas an ongoing process, continuously evaluating our changingvulnerabilities and how governments and stakeholders canwork in partnership to lessen risk.


134 Wilhite et al.

REFERENCES

Blaikie, P, T Cannon, I Davis, B Wisner. At Risk: Natural Hazards,People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. London: Routledge Pub-lishers, 1994.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Georgia Drought Man-agement Plan. Atlanta, GA, 2003. Available online athttp: / /www.state.ga.us /dnr/environ/gaenviron_files /drought_files/drought_mgmtplan_2003.pdf.

Guttman, NB. Comparing the Palmer Drought Index and the Stan-dardized Precipitation Index. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 34(1):113–121, 1998.

Hayes, M. Drought Indices. Lincoln, NE: National Drought Mitiga-tion Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1998. Availableonline at http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/indices.htm.

Hayes, M, M Svoboda, D Wilhite, O Vanyarkho. Monitoring the 1996drought using the SPI. Bulletin of the American MeteorologicalSociety 80:429–438, 1999.

Knutson, C, M Hayes, KT Phillips. How to Reduce Drought Risk.Prepared by the Preparedness and Mitigation Working Groupof the Western Drought Coordination Council. Lincoln, NE,1998. Available online at http://drought.unl.edu/plan/hand-book/risk.pdf.

McKee, TB, NJ Doesken, J Kleist. The relationship of drought fre-quency and duration to time scales. Proceedings of the EighthConference on Applied Climatology, Anaheim, CA, January17–23, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, pp.179–184, 1993.

McKee, TB, NJ Doesken, J Kleist. Drought monitoring with multipletime scales. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on AppliedClimatology, Dallas, TX, January 15–20, American Meteorolog-ical Society, Boston, MA, pp. 233–236, 1995.

Ribot, JC, A Najam, G Watson. Climate variation, vulnerability andsustainable development in the semi-arid tropics. In: JC Ribot,AR Magalhães, SS Panagides, eds. Climate Variability, ClimateChange and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics (pp.13–51). New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.



Wilhite, DA. Drought planning: A process for state government.Water Resources Bulletin 27(1):29–38, 1991.

Wilhite, DA. State actions to mitigate drought: Lessons learned.Journal of the American Water Resources Association33(5):961–968, 1997.

Wilhite, DA, O Vanyarkho. Drought: Pervasive impacts of a creepingphenomenon. In: DA Wilhite, ed. Drought: A Global Assessment(Volume I, pp. 245–255). London: Routledge Publishers, 2000.

Wilhite, DA, MJ Hayes, C Knutson, KH Smith. Planning fordrought: Moving from crisis to risk management. Journal of theAmerican Water Resources Association 36:697–710, 2000.



Documents

Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity · Drought Preparedness Planning: Building Institutional Capacity 95 increased frequency of drought events in the future,