Why Plan for Drought?

Planning for Drought

Why Plan for Drought?

Drought is a normal part of virtually every climate on the planet, even rainy ones. It is the most complex of all natural hazards, and it affects more people than any other hazard. Analysis shows that it can be as expensive as floods and hurricanes.

The impacts of drought are greater than the impacts of any other natural hazard. They are estimated to be $6-8 billion annually in the United States and occur primarily in agriculture, transportation, recreation and tourism, forestry, and energy sectors. Social and environmental impacts are also significant, although it is difficult to put a precise cost on these impacts.

We have only to look back to the 1990s to realize how far drought can reach and how long it can last. During this time, drought occurred not only in the drought-prone western states but also throughout the eastern United States. The drought of 1999 in the east extended from the New England states to Florida and westward into the Ohio Valley. For the mid-Atlantic states, this was the worst drought in 100 years. The southeastern states, in particular Georgia and Florida, experienced three to four consecutive years of drought from 1998 to 2001, and dry conditions plagued much of Georgia and the Carolinas through 2002. Since 1999, much of the western United States has also experienced severe drought conditions. The impacts of these droughts illustrate our continuing and perhaps increasing vulnerability to extended periods of water shortage.

Society’s vulnerability to drought is affected by (among other things) population growth and shifts, urbanization, demographic characteristics, technology, water use trends, government policy, social behavior, and environmental awareness. These factors are continually changing, and society’s vulnerability to drought may rise or fall in response to these changes. For example, increasing and shifting populations put increasing pressure on water and other natural resources—more people need more water.

Although drought is a natural hazard, society can reduce its vulnerability and therefore lessen the risks associated with drought episodes. The impacts of drought, like those of other natural hazards, can be reduced through mitigation and preparedness (risk management). Planning ahead to mitigate drought gives decision makers the chance to relieve the most suffering at the least expense. Reacting to drought in “crisis mode” decreases self-reliance and increases dependence on government and donors.

In addition to drought planning at the state and national level, planning has also become more prevalent at the regional and local levels. For example, tribal governments, cities, water suppliers, lake associations, and individual farmers and ranchers have begun to develop drought plans. These entities use information provided by scientists, and combine it with their own knowledge and experience to produce a drought plan that meets their needs. Preparing for drought before it strikes will make them less vulnerable to it when it does eventually occur.

Planning for drought is essential, but it may not come easily. There are many constraints to planning:

Politicians, policy makers, and the general public may lack an understanding of drought.
In areas where drought occurs infrequently, governments and the public may ignore drought planning, or give it low priority.
Governments and the public may have inadequate financial resources.
No single definition of drought works in all regions.
Responsibilities are divided among many governmental jurisdictions.
Most countries lack a unified philosophy for managing natural resources, including water.
Policies such as disaster relief and outdated water allocation practices may actually deter good long-term natural resource management.

One of the major impediments to drought planning is its cost. Officials may find it difficult to justify the costs of a plan, which are immediate and fixed, against the unknown costs of some future drought. (These unknown costs of drought are not entirely economic; they also include human suffering, damage to biological resources, and the degradation of the physical environment, items whose values are inherently difficult to estimate.) But studies have shown that crisis-oriented drought response efforts have been largely ineffective, poorly coordinated, untimely, and inefficient in terms of the resources allocated. In fact, since 1989, Congress has appropriated more than $25 billion in agriculture disaster assistance alone. Compared to expenditures of this magnitude, an investment in drought preparedness programs is a sound economic decision. Moreover, drought planning efforts can use existing political and institutional structures, and plans can (and should) be incorporated into general natural disaster or water management plans, thus reducing the cost of planning efforts.