Breaking the Breaking the HydroHydro--illogical illogical
Cycle:Cycle:
Progress or Progress or Status Quo for Status Quo for
Drought Drought Management in the Management in the
U.S.?U.S.?
Donald A. Wilhite, Director
School of Natural Resources
Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle:An Institutional Challenge
Crisis Managemen
t
Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle
• Accepting drought as a normal part of climate.
Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle
• Accepting drought as a normal part of climate.
• Adopting a pro-active (preparedness) vs. reactive (crisis management) approach for drought
management.
• Understanding drought impacts as an indicator of
vulnerability.
– Vulnerability assessment is a crucial element of drought planning.
Drought impacts today are more complex since more economic
sectors are affected, creating more conflicts between water
users.
Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle
• Accepting drought as a normal part of climate.
• Adopting a pro-active (preparedness) vs. reactive (crisis management) approach for drought
management.
• Understanding drought impacts as an indicator of
vulnerability.
– Vulnerability assessment is a crucial element of drought planning.
• Understanding society as dynamic—each drought
event is different and superimposed over existing
societal characteristics.
– Impacts reflect changing vulnerabilities; the need
for adaptation and mitigation.
Population Growth (% change, 1990-2000)
The Cycle of Disaster ManagementThe Cycle of Disaster Management
Adopting a new paradigm for drought management!
Progress Towards Drought Risk Management in the U.S.
• Widespread drought conditions/serious and diverse
impacts—late 1980s to early 1990s.
Progress Towards Drought Risk Management in the U.S.
• Widespread drought conditions/serious and diverse
impacts—late 1980s to early 1990s.
• Formation of the National Drought Mitigation Center
in 1995.
– Catalyst for change
– Program emphasis� Vulnerability ReductionVulnerability Reduction
• Improved monitoring and awareness
• Risk/vulnerability assessment
• Mitigation planning and policy development
• National Drought Policy Act, 1998.
• National Drought Policy Commission Report, 2000.
Progress Towards Drought Risk Management in the U.S.
• National Drought Preparedness Act
– Introduced in U.S. Congress in 2001, 2003, and 2005.
• Concept of National Integrated Drought Information
System (NIDIS) proposed in 2004.
• Passage of the NIDIS bill by Congress, 2006.
• Continued widespread, severe drought to present
has kept drought as a national focus.
• Climatic trends in west (warming, reduced snowpack,
water scarcity).
• IPCC 2007 report—more frequent, severe droughts of longer duration.
Moving towards a more risk-based management approach
• Components of effective drought planning
– Monitoring, comprehensive and integrated early warning systems, and effective/timely delivery systems.
– Risk assessment to identify vulnerable groups, sectors,
and regions
– Mitigation measures identified and implemented.
– Policy development to drive behavioral change at all
levels.
• Elements for success
– Awareness—public and political
– Political will/support
– Stakeholder recognition of the need for change.
Support for RISK-BASED DROUGHT MITIGATION PLANNING . . . .
has been from the BOTTOM UP!
State/Local/Tribal
Regional
Federal
Response Mitigation
Increasing need for timely, reliable climate/water supply assessments
Increasing need for higher resolution analysis for policy/decision support
Increasing need for more reliable seasonal forecasts/outlooks
Progress has been impressive . . . .
more products on the way!
Drought Monitoring at the Continental Scale
Assessing and Archiving Impacts
The progression to drought mitigation planning . . . . .
Demand for mitigation
planning
Development of new
monitoring tools
a synergistic relationship!!
National Integrated Drought Information System
NIDIS
2004 2007
(social factors)
Widely adopted as the new paradigm for drought
management.
Drought Management in the U.S.: Next Steps!
• NIDIS provides an opportunity to improve our drought
early warning system, linking federal, state, and local efforts, it also provides the opportunity to:
– Build greater resilience to drought through improve
planning and adaptation.
• More emphasis on drought mitigation planning.
• Federal government needs to provide leadership/incentives.
– Increase emphasis on risk management to lessen
the need for reactive, costly response measures.
• Mitigation is more cost-effective than emergency response.
– Form a coherent national drought policy that ultimately reduces societal vulnerability.
– Manage for climate variability and change!
©2009 The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska. All rights reserved.
Thanks!
[email protected] of Natural Resources
snr.unl.edu
Recommended
