Moving Beyond Crisis Management


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Moving Beyond Crisis Management

  1. 1. Moving Beyond Crisis Management After nearly a century of ad hoc drought management, the United States needs a new paradigm centered on risk management. BY DONALD A. WILHITE T o the casual observer, it may appear that in the past drought. This drought also coin- five years, drought has been a more common visitor cided with the formation of the to the American landscape. Drought conditions rav- National Drought Policy Commis- aged the southwestern and south-central states dur- sion, a partnership between fed- ing 1995 and 1996, raising havoc in many economic eral agencies and nonfederal rep- sectors. It also caused serious environmental and so- resentatives from tribal, munici- cial hardships. Drought has persisted in each year pal, and other interest groups. The since, affecting most areas in the country on at least one occasion and Congress and the president several regions for three or more consecutive years. charged the commission with de- From the policy perspective, the most significant droughts may have termining a new direction for been the episode of 1995 and 1996, which sparked a series of initia- drought management in the tives, and the 1999 drought, which struck the eastern United States. United States–one emphasizing risk management over crisis man- Extending from New England Although drought conditions agement. through most of the Southeast, are common in the eastern United this last drought persisted for States, the intensity, duration, and Too Little, Too Late D nearly 12 months from mid-1998 spatial extent of this event caused rought is normal in vir- through late summer 1999, and great concern. This drought cap- tually all portions of garnered considerable attention tured the attention of the major the United States. It is because of its wide-ranging and news media in the drought-affected a recurring, inevitable complex impacts on agriculture, area, and they questioned whether feature of climate. The Federal forestry, water supply, and tour- this region and the nation were ad- Emergency Management Agency ism and recreation. equately prepared for extreme (FEMA) estimates average annual 20 s FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy
  2. 2. losses because of drought in the tematically addresses these con- agers—need a better understand- United States to be $6 billion to straints, whether perceived or real. ing of the phenomenon before try- $8 billion, more than for any other Scientists and professional or- ing to establish plans that reduce natural hazard. 1 Yet the United ganizations have issued numerous vulnerability for future genera- States, as well as most other na- calls for action to develop a na- tions. 5 tions, is ill-prepared to deal with tional drought policy, but these Drought is different from other the consequences of drought. have produced little in the way of natural hazards such as floods, Historically, our nation’s ap- progress. Yet, thanks to the Na- earthquakes, and tornadoes, which proach to drought management tional Drought Policy Act of 19983 occur swiftly and with clearly has been to offer relief to the and the subsequent report issued visible results. All droughts origi- affected area. These emergency re- by the National Drought Policy nate from a significant reduction in sponse programs are for the most part too little, too late. More im- portantly, drought relief does little Drought is the Rodney Dangerfield of natural if anything to reduce the vulnerabil- ity of the affected area to future hazards; it doesn’t get the respect that other drought events. On the contrary, considerable evidence suggests that government relief actually increases natural hazards do. vulnerability to future events by in- creasing the recipients’ dependence Commission to Congress and the precipitation extended over a season on government and by encouraging president, we now can develop a or longer. Humans can exacerbate resource managers to maintain the coherent national policy that em- drought, however, by over-allocat- very strategies that place industry, phasizes drought preparedness and ing water supplies so demand may utilities, the community, and indi- mitigation. 4 We are at a critical greatly exceed supply in water-short viduals at risk. Improving drought crossroads for drought policy. Will years. Poor land management prac- management will require a new para- we continue down the road of cri- tices such as overgrazing can also de- digm, one that encourages prepared- sis management or move toward grade the productivity of the natu- ness and mitigation by applying the risk management? ral landscape, thus increasing vul- principles of risk management. nerability to drought. The lack of progress in drought Profiles of Drought Many definitions of drought ex- D preparedness is often blamed on rought may be one of ist, reflecting the different climatic constraints that are fallacious, no the most complex and characteristics between regions and longer exist, or represent only a least understood of all the wide range of impacts that can minor deterrent to improved natural hazards, af- occur on various economic sectors drought management. 2 The argu- fecting more people than any other and the environment. ment goes that drought is unpre- hazard. It is a normal feature of Droughts are commonly classi- dictable; that it is hard to moni- climate and its recurrence is inevi- fied as meteorological, agricultural, tor because it develops slowly; that table. Confusion about its charac- and hydrological. Meteorological data on climate and water supply teristics, however, has meant that drought occurs when there is a sig- are inadequate; that information effective management in most parts nificant deficiency of precipitation delivery systems are inadequate; of the world has received short compared with what is normal or that a lack of coordination exists shrift. Drought, in fact, is the expected over some extended pe- between and within government Rodney Dangerfield of natural riod of time. Agricultural drought agencies responsible for monitor- hazards; that is, it doesn’t get the results when deficiencies in pre- ing drought, managing water sup- respect that other natural hazards cipitation lead to a reduction in ply, and planning for and respond- do, given the magnitude of its soil moisture that retards plant ing to drought; and that suitable impacts. Scientists, policymakers, growth and development and, ul- planning methodologies are un- and decision makers—including timately, yield. Hydrological available. Drought planning sys- farmers and natural resource man- drought, on the other hand, oc- Spring 2001 s 21
  3. 3. curs when an extended precipita- periods of water shortage because and extreme drought affected more tion shortfall affects surface and of large investments in water stor- than 25 percent of the country in subsurface water supply, which is age and transmission facilities. Pre- 27 of the past 100 years. During measured by monitoring stream cisely because the eastern states the drought of 1934, more than flow, reservoir and lake levels, and have fewer droughts, the region is 60 percent of the 48 contiguous groundwater. generally less prepared to mitigate states experienced severe or extreme Hydrological droughts are usu- and respond to its effects. drought conditions. ally out of phase with meteorologi- Drought differs from other cal and agricultural droughts since natural hazards in several critical Human Component M a time lapse occurs between defi- ways, which complicates monitor- any people consider ciencies in precipitation and the ing, impact assessment, mitiga- drought to be largely a natural or phys- ical event. In reality, Drought, like other natural hazards, has both a drought, like other natural haz- ards, has both a natural and a so- natural and a social component, and human activity cial component, and human activ- ity can either mitigate or worsen the physical effects. Of course, we can either mitigate or worsen the physical effects. can’t change the weather, or me- teorological drought, which oc- lowering of reservoirs or ground- tion, and response. First, drought curs through persistent large-scale water. In addition, water in hydro- is a slow-onset, creeping, natural disruptions in the global circula- logical storage systems such as res- hazard, so it’s hard to determine tion pattern of the atmosphere. ervoirs and rivers is often used for when it begins and ends. Its ef- But we can change some of the multiple and competing purposes fects often accumulate slowly over social factors that determine our such as drinking water, power gen- a considerable period of time and vulnerability to drought. eration, flood control, irrigation, may linger for years after the event Our population is not only in- and recreation. Competition for is over. Scientists and policymakers creasing but also shifting from water in these storage systems es- continue to debate the criteria for humid to more arid climates— calates during drought, increasing declaring an end to a drought. such as from the Northeast and conflicts among water users. Second, the absence of a precise Midwest to the Sunbelt and the No wonder there’s a lack of and universally accepted definition western states—and from rural to progress in drought management. of drought adds to the confusion urban settings. Urban growth If scientists can’t agree on what about whether or not a drought strains limited water supplies and drought is, or how severe it is, how exists and, if it does, its degree of water supply systems, especially can policymakers know when to severity. Realistically, definitions during periods of peak demand. act? A meteorologist, agronomist, of drought must be specific to re- An increasingly urbanized popu- and hydrologist may well pro- gions and impacts. lation is also increasing conflict vide three distinctly different re- Third, drought does not affect between agricultural and urban sponses to the question, are we in buildings, roads, and other struc- water users, a trend that will only a drought? More important, they tures, and it is more geographically be exacerbated in the future. may all be correct. widespread than other natural haz- As the population increases, so Droughts occur more frequently ards. does pressure on natural resources. in the West and usually last longer These peculiar characteristics of To improve drought management, there, but the droughts of 1998 drought make quantifying its im- we need to use natural resources through 2000 have demonstrated pacts and providing disaster relief in a more sustainable manner. This the vulnerability of eastern states far more difficult than for other will require a partnership between to severe and extended periods of natural hazards. The National individuals and government. Fur- low rainfall. Yet the West is cur- Drought Mitigation Center, how- ther complicating the picture, in rently better equipped to manage ever, recently determined that for the future the effects of drought water supplies during extended the 48 contiguous states, severe will fall harder on some economic 22 s FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy
  4. 4. sectors, population groups, and re- range planning during a non- plans largely focused on response gions. Greater awareness of our drought period could have averted efforts; today the trend is for states environment and the need to pre- or reduced the risk. to place greater emphasis on miti- serve and restore environmental Should society subsidize poor gation as the fundamental element quality is placing greater pressure land and water managers or reward of a drought plan. Enhancing on all of us to be better stewards those who plan ahead or adopt ap- monitoring and early warning sys- of natural and biological resources. propriate management practices? tems and conducting comprehen- One thing is certain: continu- Risk management is aimed at the sive risk assessments of vulnerable ing to address the effects of latter—crisis management, the population groups, economic sec- drought in a reactive, crisis-man- former. The implementation of a tors, and areas are key components agement mode will do little to re- national drought policy in Austra- of the planning process. duce the impacts of these events in the future. In fact, this approach has been shown to increase vulner- If the government continues to bail out the people ability to drought in the long term because it increases dependence on most affected by drought, they will have no government, which, in turn, de- creases self-reliance. If the govern- ment continues to bail out the incentive to protect the natural resource base. people most affected by drought, they will have no incentive to lia in 1992 changed that nation’s Other mitigation strategies in- adopt methods to protect the natu- approach to drought management. clude public education, conflict ral resource base. (See “Water Policy Adrift” in this is- resolution actions among water In arid and semi-arid Australia, sue of FORUM.) We should learn users, and measures that augment the best land managers have from their experience. supply and manage demand. learned that foresight and plan- Texas, for example, is developing ning can lessen the devastating ef- Mitigating Disaster a statewide drought plan that in- I fects of inevitable long dry spells. n the absence of a coherent cludes a requirement for local com- By applying appropriate farm national drought-manage- munities to develop drought plans. management practices, farmers can ment strategy, an increasing Georgia’s drought plan will in- reduce many of the risks associated number of states have clude a state framework with a se- with drought, thus minimizing stepped in to fill the void, creating ries of more specific regional plans, their losses. 6 Drought relief in their own drought plans during the such as for the metro Atlanta area Australia is now provided only past two decades. 7 In 1982, only and the Flint River basin. during exceptional drought con- three states had drought plans in Utah and Nebraska have revised ditions. In the United States, how- place. By 2000, 30 states had de- their plans to further emphasize ever, the recipients of drought re- veloped plans and six states were at mitigation, and Colorado is in the lief are typically those who do not various stages of developing a plan. revision process. New Mexico, implement appropriate manage- The basic goal of state drought which first developed a drought ment strategies when faced with plans should be to improve the ef- plan in 1998, now has mitigation impending drought or those who fectiveness of preparedness and re- as the primary ingredient of its manage the land resource in sponse efforts by enhancing moni- plan. Texas, Hawaii, and Georgia nonsustainable ways by overgraz- toring and early warning, risk and are following a similar course. As ing, planting inappropriate crops, impact assessment, and mitigation states gain more experience with applying inappropriate tillage and response. drought planning and mitigation practices, or storing inadequate re- Plans should also contain pro- actions, the trend toward mitiga- serves of fodder for livestock. Ur- visions to improve coordination tion is expected to continue. ban areas may seek federal or state within agencies of state govern- Initially, states were slow to de- grants or loans when water sup- ment and between local and fed- velop drought plans because the plies are at risk when, in fact, long- eral government. Initially, drought planning process was unfamiliar. Spring 2001 s 23
  5. 5. With the development of drought age. All of these actions can help and consistent with the goals of planning models and the availabil- to improve public awareness of the sustainable development. ity of a greater number of plans importance of water management Drought policy should empha- for comparison, drought planning and the value of protecting our size risk management through the has become a less mysterious pro- limited water resources. application of preparedness and cess. 8 As states initiate the plan- mitigation. In advance of drought, ning process, they first study the Leading the Way planning needs to be encouraged W drought plans of other states to ith the tremendous at all levels of government, moni- compare methodology and orga- advances in drought toring and early warning systems nizational structure. planning at the state must be integrated and improved, The rapid adoption of drought level in recent years, risk assessments should be con- plans is also a clear indication of it should come as no surprise that ducted, and mitigation actions their benefits. Drought plans pro- states have been extremely frus- and programs should be identified and implemented. These actions will increase the level of readiness Unlike other natural disasters, there is no lead and improve operational and in- stitutional capabilities for respond- federal agency for drought programs. ing to a drought. Mitigation— short-term and long-term actions, programs, or policies imple- vide the framework for improved trated with the lack of progress at mented during and in advance of coordination within and between the federal level. Early into the drought—reduces the degree of levels of government. Compre- 1995-1996 drought, the lack of risk to human life, property, and hensive, integrated early warning leadership and coordination at the productivity. and monitoring systems enhance federal level quickly became obvi- Emergency response, however, the delivery of information to de- ous, as attempts to access drought will always be a part of drought cision makers at all levels. Many assistance programs were unsuc- management since we cannot states now use the Internet to dis- cessful because federal programs avoid or reduce all potential im- seminate information to decision had been discontinued, were pacts through mitigation pro- makers as well as to businesses, underfunded, or in some cases had grams. In addition, it is probable farmers, the banks that provide not received appropriations from that a future drought will exceed loans to farmers, and individual Congress. the drought of record and, there- homeowners. These websites Unlike other natural disasters fore, the capacity of a region to provide current information on where Federal Emergency Manage- respond. drought severity, water-use re- ment Agency (FEMA) provides Emergency response should be strictions, water conservation rec- leadership and coordinates federal used sparingly, however, and only ommendations, key contacts with- response efforts, there is no lead in a way that supports long-term in state and federal agencies, and federal agency for drought pro- goals and objectives. other timely information. grams. This failure of leadership A national drought policy should Through drought plans, the continued in later droughts. Re- also reduce risk by developing risks associated with drought can cent initiatives toward developing better awareness and understanding be better defined and addressed a national drought policy are the of the hazard and the underlying with active mitigation and re- direct result of those frustrations. causes of societal vulnerability. A sponse programs. The planning A national drought policy risk-management approach pro- process also allows the numerous should establish a clear set of prin- motes improved forecasts as well as stakeholders to be involved early ciples to govern the management integrated monitoring and early and often in plan development. of drought and its impacts. The warning systems, encourages pre- This increases the probability that policy should be consistent and paredness plans and mitigation conflicts between water users will equitable for all regions, popula- programs at various levels of gov- not escalate during times of short- tion groups, and economic sectors ernment, and supports a safety net 24 s FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy
  6. 6. of emergency response programs the severe impacts of drought in Fourth, states strongly requested that ensure timely and targeted 1996, FEMA was directed to chair that a single federal agency be ap- relief. a multi-state task force to address pointed to coordinate drought pre- the drought situation in the South- paredness and response. Sense of Urgency west and southern Great Plains The drought of 1996 also spurred C alls for action on drought states. The purpose of the task development of a drought task force policy and plan develop- force was to coordinate the federal under the leadership of the West- ment in the United States response to problems in the ern Governors’ Association. Formed date back to at least the drought-stricken region by iden- in June 1996 as a result of a resolu- late 1970s. Today, the federal tifying needs, applicable pro- tion offered by Governor Gary government’s failure to adequately grams, and program barriers. The Johnson of New Mexico, the task address the spiraling impacts of task force was also directed to sug- force emphasized the importance drought has provoked a growing number of calls for action. Clearly, the traditional, reactive, Clearly, the traditional, reactive, crisis crisis management approach, which has relied on ad hoc inter- management approach isn’t working. agency committees that are quickly disbanded following the end of a drought, isn’t working. gest ways to improve drought man- of a comprehensive, integrated The lessons—the successes and agement through short- and long- drought response. failures—of these responses have term national actions. The task force made several im- quickly been forgotten, and the The final report contained sev- portant recommendations. First, a failures are simply repeated with eral important long-term recom- national drought policy is needed the next event. mendations. to integrate actions and responsi- In response, a number of state First, the task force called for the bilities among all levels of govern- organizations, scientific panels, development of a national drought ment. The policy should empha- and federal agencies—including policy based on the philosophy of size preparedness, response, and the Western Governors’ Policy Of- cooperation with state and local mitigation measures. fice, General Accounting Office, stakeholders. This policy should Second, states should develop National Academy of Sciences, include a national climate and contingency plans to provide early Great Lakes Commission, Inter- drought monitoring system to pro- warning of drought to stakehold- state Council on Water Policy, U.S. vide early warning of the onset and ers, short- and long-term mitiga- Environmental Protection Agency, severity of drought to federal, tion and response programs, along American Meteorological Society, state, and local officials. with triggers for the start-up and Office of Technology Assessment, Second, the task force suggested shut-down of these programs. FEMA, Western Governors’ Asso- that a regional forum be created Third, a regional drought coor- ciation, and Western Water Policy to assess regional needs and re- dinating council should be created Review Advisory Commission— sources, identify critical areas and to develop sustainable policy, have issued calls for action. 9 The interests, provide reliable and monitor drought conditions, as- diversity of these stakeholders il- timely information, and coordinate sess state-level responses, identify lustrates the extent of drought’s state actions. impacts and issues for resolution, impact on the economy and envi- Third, the task force asked and work in partnership with the ronment and the growing concern FEMA to include drought as one federal government to address over the ineffectiveness of prior of the natural hazards addressed drought-related needs. response efforts to address the in the National Mitigation Strat- Fourth, a federal interagency complex, spiraling impacts of egy, given the substantial costs as- coordinating group should be es- drought in a timely and equitable sociated with its occurrence and tablished with a designated lead fashion. the numerous opportunities avail- agency for drought coordination More recently, in response to able to mitigate its effects. with states and regional agencies. Spring 2001 s 25
  7. 7. The FEMA and Western Gov- tional climate-monitoring system entists and managers to enhance ernors’ Association reports have in support of that policy, as well observation networks, monitoring, spurred a number of important as to develop state drought miti- prediction, information delivery, policy initiatives. In early 1997, gation plans. Although impacts and applied research, as well as FEMA, Western Governors’ Asso- of drought occur mainly at the lo- foster public understanding of and ciation, the Small Business Ad- cal, state, and regional level, this preparedness for drought; ministration, and the U.S. depart- study concluded that it was im- s Develop and incorporate com- ments of Agriculture, Interior, and perative for the federal government prehensive insurance and financial Commerce signed a memorandum to provide the leadership necessary strategies into drought prepared- of understanding calling for a part- to improve the way the nation ness plans; s Maintain a safety net of emer- gency relief that emphasizes sound A national drought policy is needed to integrate stewardship of natural resources and self-help; and s Coordinate drought programs actions and responsibilities among all levels of and resources effectively and effi- ciently and in a customer-oriented government. manner. The National Drought Policy nership among federal, state, lo- prepares for and responds to Commission further recommended cal, and tribal governments to re- drought. creation of a long-term National duce drought impacts in the west- The severe drought of 1996 and Drought Council composed of fed- ern United States. This MOU the initiatives it inspired also led eral and nonfederal members to resulted in the following actions: Senator Pete Domenici and Con- implement the recommendations of s The formation of the Western gressman Joe Skeen of New Mexico the commission. The commission Drought Coordination Council to to introduce the National Drought further recommended that Congress address the recommendations of Policy Act of 1998 in Congress. This designate the secretary of Agricul- the western governors; bill created the National Drought ture as co-chair of the Council, with s The designation of the USDA as Policy Commission to “provide a nonfederal co-chair to be elected the lead federal agency for drought, advice and recommendations on by the nonfederal council members. to carry out the objectives of the creation of an integrated, coordi- In late 2000, Secretary of Agricul- MOU; and nated Federal policy designed to ture Dan Glickman established an s The establishment by USDA of prepare for and respond to serious interim National Drought Council, a federal interagency drought co- drought emergencies.” pending action on a permanent ordinating group. In a report submitted to Con- council by the U.S. Congress. Concurrently, the Western Wa- gress and the president in May The true legacy of the 1995- ter Policy Review Advisory Com- 2000, the National Drought 1996 drought is not likely to be mission, created by the Western Policy Commission recommended its economic, environmental, and Water Policy Act of 1992, reexam- that the United States establish a social impacts, but rather the ined western water policy. 10 One national drought policy emphasiz- policy initiatives that occurred in of the reports published by the ing preparedness. The goals of this the post-drought period. These commission summarized recom- policy would be to: initiatives appear to be changing mendations from recent studies on s Incorporate planning, imple- the way droughts are viewed, and drought management that should mentation of plans and mitigation they may change the way droughts be incorporated in future attempts measures, risk management, re- are managed in the United States. to integrate drought management source stewardship, environmen- The real question is whether these and water policy in the West. 11 tal considerations, and public edu- changes will result in permanent The consensus of these studies cation as key elements of an and substantive modifications in emphasized the need to create a effective national drought policy; the way government entities deal national drought policy and a na- s Improve collaboration among sci- with drought. 26 s FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy
  8. 8. Cloudy Future partnerships” have become com- a series of wet years. Changing the D rought is a normal part monplace. Nevertheless, the men- momentum of the past will be dif- of climate for essen- tality of most state and federal ficult, but it is critical for the sci- tially all regions of the government agencies remains re- entific community and the public United States. Like- sponse oriented. to hold policymakers to this com- wise, drought relief has become a Existing institutional inertia of mitment. s common feature of the national federal emergency response pro- landscape. Shaped over the course grams and the expectations of the Donald A. Wilhite is director of of the past century and a half, this recipients of assistance programs, the National Drought Mitigation relief occurs primarily under a di- however, encourage drought man- Center and the International verse, complex, confusing, and agement to remain in a reactive, Drought Information Center and a poorly coordinated ensemble of crisis-management mode. It is not professor in the School of Natural federal programs. It is reactive and yet apparent whether federal and Resource Sciences at the University does little to lessen the risks asso- state policymakers clearly under- of Nebraska, in Lincoln. ciated with future droughts. It is stand the scope of the changes that becoming increasingly clear that will be required to invoke the new NOTES current land and water-supply paradigm of risk management. management practices are not sus- When drought occurs, especially 1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, tainable in the long term, espe- in election years, drought relief is National Mitigation Strategy (Washington, cially given the variability of cli- one method that members of Con- DC: FEMA, 1995), p. 2. mate and the increasing demand gress use to send money home to 2. Donald A. Wilhite and William E. on natural resources. their constituents. Easterling, eds., Planning for Drought: Toward Although state and federal at- The true test of whether we are a Reduction of Societal Vulnerability (Boulder, tention to improving drought making progress will be if Congress CO: Westview Press, 1987), pp. 533-565. management in the United States and the administration enthusias- 3. National Drought Policy Act of 1998, 105 has been copious in recent years, tically embrace the recommenda- U.S.C. § 105-199 (1998). including the National Drought tions of the National Drought 4. National Drought Policy Commission, Policy Act of 1998, little change Policy Commission and other Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century in practice is visible to date, espe- groups, provide adequate funding (Washington, DC: NDPC, 2000), p. 48. cially at the federal level. Federal to support commission goals and 5. Donald A. Wilhite, ed., Drought: A response to drought conditions in recommendations, and direct fed- Global Assessment (London, UK: Routledge 1999 and 2000 was reactive and eral agencies to modify existing Publishers, 2000), vol. 1-2, p. 700. short-term in scope—in other policies and programs to empha- 6. Bruce O’Meagher, M. Stafford Smith, and words, business as usual. To fill the size mitigation and preparedness. David H. White, “Approaches to Integrated vacuum, states have continued to If they do, they will shift funding Drought Risk Management: Australia’s National be the most progressive actors in from crisis to risk management and Drought Policy,” in Wilhite, Drought: A Global drought management, a trend implement the new paradigm. Assessment, pp 114-128. that began in the early to mid- Only time will determine the 7. Donald A. Wilhite, “State Actions to 1980s. Regardless of progress by dedication of the nation to this Mitigate Drought: Lessons Learned,” Journal states, improved drought manage- new approach to drought manage- of the American Water Resources Association ment requires an integrated ap- ment. A continuation of wide- 33(5) (1997), pp. 961-968. proach between and within levels spread, severe drought in the next 8. Donald A. Wilhite, “Planning for Drought: of government. few years would certainly engen- Moving from Crisis to Risk Management,” True, federal agencies are now der greater support for this new Journal of the American Water Resources speaking the new language of paradigm and help us continue Association 36(4) (2000), pp. 697-710. drought management, and phrases down the path to risk manage- 9. Western Governors’ Policy Office, like “improved coordination and ment. The political will to change Managing Resource Scarcity: Lessons from the cooperation,” “increased emphasis the way we manage drought ap- Mid-seventies Drought (Denver, CO: Institute on mitigation and preparedness,” pears to be genuine but may for Policy Research, 1978), p. 78; General and “building nonfederal/federal evaporate quickly if we experience Accounting Office, Federal Responses to the Spring 2001 s 27
  9. 9. 1976-77 Drought: What Should Be Done Next; 1991), p. 39; J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak, eds., Force Findings (Washington, DC: FEMA, 1996), (Washington, DC: GAO, 1979), p. 29; National The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change p. 31; Western Water Policy Review Advisory Academy of Sciences, The National Climate on the United States, EPA-230-05-89-050 Commission, Water in the West: Challenge for Program: Early Achievements and Future (Washington, DC: EPA, 1989), p. 411; the Next Century (Washington, DC: National Directions (Washington, DC: NAS, 1986), American Meteorological Society, AMS Technical Information Service, 1998), pp. 5-10. p. 55; Great Lakes Commission, A Guidebook Statement on Meteorological Drought (Boston, 10. Western Water Policy Review Act of to Drought Management and Water Level MA: AMS, 1997), pp. 847-849; U.S. Congress, 1992, 102 U.S.C. § 102-575 (1992). Change in the Great Lakes (Ann Arbor, MI: Office of Technology Assessment, Preparing 11. Donald A. Wilhite, Improving Drought Great Lakes Commission, 1990), p. 61; Inter- for an Uncertain Climate , OTA-0-567 (Wash- Management in the West (Washington, DC: state Council on Water Policy, Statement of ington, DC: OTA, 1993), v. 1, pp. 250-257; National Technical Information Service, Policy 1991-92 (Washington, DC: ICWP, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997), p. 46. Drought of 1996: Multi-State Drought Task 28 s FORUM for Applied Research and Public Policy