Droughts are among the most expensive and disruptive natural disasters, after tropical cyclones, accounting for $249.7 billion in adjusted losses for the U.S. between 1980 and 2019 (NOAA NCEI, 2020). In the last century, warming has been linked with disruptions to the water cycle, and anthropogenic drivers such as land use change and dust loading have made droughts longer and more intense (Dai, 2011). Between 2019 and 2050, the global number of people living in locations that experience water scarcity at least one month per year will increase from roughly 3.6 to between 4.8 and 5.7 billion (UN-Water, 2019). Unfortunately, this situation is expected to worsen. Communities in the U.S. tend to react with short-term responses to drought, rather than using longer-term proactive measures to reduce future drought vulnerability (Jedd, 2019). This sets up a risky situation, especially for the western U.S., which now faces aridification due to increasing temperatures (Overpeck and Udall, 2020). Planning for drought is key to protecting communities, ecosystems and economies from devastating losses.
Drought mitigation reduces the likelihood that droughts will become disasters. Examples of mitigation measures include early warning systems, improved short-term/seasonal water forecasts, water demand reduction or conservation, additional water supply infrastructure (groundwater extraction or reservoir storage), community connection to public water systems, and public education programs (Wilhite et al., 2014). Drought mitigation planning is the process of convening public and private organizations, communities, and/or individuals with the purpose of developing a protocol for identifying and reducing overall drought vulnerability (Schwab, 2013), determining which actions will be taken during droughts (Fontaine et al., 2014), and creating a reference document containing an elaboration on these measures, when they should be employed, and by whom. Relevant decision-makers include state governments, environmental agencies and organizations, regional or local resource managers, municipal water suppliers, wildfire managers, public health departments, nonprofits, agricultural producers and equipment dealers, energy and hydropower producers, or recreation and tourism companies (National Drought Mitigation Center, 2020).
California offers an example of a state where local planning is required by law. The variation in California’s climate, terrain, and population centers means that the locations and timing of rain and snow are mismatched from where and when water is needed. Generally, precipitation occurs in the northern part of the state and along the Sierra Nevada mountain range during the winter. However, water is needed throughout the state for urban and agricultural needs, especially during the hotter summer months. Dairy, grapes, and almonds are the top-grossing agricultural products (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2020); all of which are dependent on a steady water supply. Cattle and orchards require a minimum amount of water to survive from one year to the next, and cannot be fallow or paused. Groundwater fills this need when surface water is not readily available. However, these groundwater reserves are chronically over drafted, especially during dry years (Dogan et al., 2019). Recent exposure to drought prompted a major policy shift. During the prolonged drought in California from 2011 to 2019[1], the worst occurring from August 2013 through February 2017,[2] the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was enacted, requiring water users to develop groundwater management plans by 2022 and reach sustainability (to eliminate “overdraft” of groundwater withdrawal rates that exceed replenishment) by 2040 (Hanak et al., 2015). Because these plans involve local water users, they improve upon the failures of central governmental approaches to prevent groundwater over-abstraction (Molle and Closas, 2020). In the case of SGMA, planning can prevent overconsumption of water during dry spells and droughts.
Though the benefits of drought planning have been established (Wilhite et al., 2000; WMO and GWP, 2014), research has shown some form of drought planning to be underway in almost all U.S. states (Fu et al., 2013; Fontaine et al., 2014; Fu et al., 2013), and comparative case studies evaluate the reasons for success and failure (Botterill, 2013), there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of the quality of plans across the U.S. No study has coded drought plan content in a way that makes it possible to comparatively rank the comprehensiveness of all states’ drought, water, hazard, and climate plans. This study establishes an evaluation framework to objectively evaluate state plans and compiles the results of coding drought related plans for the time period 2000-2021. We also use the dataset to investigate drivers of planning. Namely, we ask whether states that have experienced longer and more intense drought have a more comprehensive planning approach. We explore the alternative explanation of whether there is a threshold of financial capacity that states need in order to plan.
We describe four types of U.S. drought plans and how they can limit damage. A motivating factor for creating this dataset was to discover whether there is variation and, if so, why some states have a more comprehensive approach to planning for droughts, despite the fact that there is no national-level requirement to do so.[3] We hypothesized that, though states are not required to plan for drought, they do so because of the threat that it poses to natural resources and the economy. In other words, we test whether states with longer and more intense drought (and more damaging impacts) have a higher tendency for comprehensive planning. Drought planning also has broader benefits that overlap with other issues including water, natural disasters, energy, and climate mitigation/adaptation. Therefore, we also test the assumption that states will strive for comprehensive drought plans independent of financial resources, i.e., income tax revenues.
Responsibilities for governing water are shared between federal and state agencies. Federal programs provide tax incentives for efficient water use, and subsidies for farmer losses caused by droughts (Stakhiv et al., 2016). Meanwhile, state and local governments are responsible for water delivery and waste water removal, but share responsibilities like water delivery, dam construction and reservoir management with the federal government (Stoutenborough and Vedlitz, 2014). When drought is framed as an agricultural issue, it is possible to have a relatively straightforward set of national policy solutions (for the Australian example, see Botterill, 2013). Drought, however, as an American policy issue, goes beyond agriculture to municipal water supply, energy, and ecosystems (Botterill, 2013). Therefore, federal, state, and local authority for drought is fragmented. This is supported by a tendency to give states a high degree of independence in natural resource planning. The Western Governors’ Association (2015) claims that states are the “preeminent authority on water management within their boundaries,” with rights to surface and groundwater management.
Another complicating factor to obtaining a national drought policy is regional variation in water availability, drought conditions, risks, and response options (Congressional Research Service, 2013). As with other natural resources, water availability varies by state. A state’s elevation, climate, groundwater supplies, surface water storage capacity, anthropogenic demand for water, along with underlying environmental, social, economic, cultural, and physical factors influence how susceptible a state is to drought (Hagenlocher et al., 2019). State planners have numerous climate datasets at their disposal, including paleoclimate records and seasonal forecasts, and some planners claim that using this data “depoliticizes” actions surrounding drought mitigation (Finnessey et al., 2016). A vast array of data about drought risk (Svoboda et al., 2015), however, does not automatically lead to the political will to plan for this hazard (Botterill, 2013). Without a national drought policy, Wilhite et al. (2014) claim that drought management will continue to be reactionary and crisis-driven. Ideally, though, drought mitigation planning should contain elements of monitoring, vulnerability assessment, in addition to management response actions (World Meteorological Association and Global Water Partnership, 2014).
The classic 10-step method for drought planning relies on political mobilization (Wilhite et al., 2005). Under this method, the first step is for a state leader, such as the governor, to appoint a drought task force. The task force oversees a drought plan’s development and implementation, and makes recommendations when the plan is activated during droughts (Wilhite et al., 2005). This idealized process relies on the individual initiative of a state leader, and the willingness of experts and officials to serve on the task force. In empirical evaluations of state drought planning efforts, state plans were found to address emergency response during a drought crisis, but lacked mitigation actions to address the risks of future droughts (Fu et al., 2013). This suggests that some idealized dimensions of drought planning may be more difficult to achieve in practice, due to the lack of a federal mandate.
Types of state-level drought plans
There are four main plan types with drought-related scope. The institutional design varies, but there is convergence around creating a drought-specific task force in addition to creation of and coordination with other monitoring and planning efforts at the local level within a state. Plans ideally provide a comprehensive overview of a state’s natural resources and water supplies, with an indication of water needs from various sectors. Actions are largely voluntary and incentive-based, intended to provide education and assistance (Schwab, 2013). Plans may identify and recommend future policy options such as regulations or budgetary allocations for water-related programs (e.g. California Water Plan). These different types of plans reflect the varying types of integration with water, climate, and hazard issue areas. Jordan and Lenschow (2010) cover environmental policy integration as the notion that environmental risk and harm is not seen as the natural result of Under this definition, the stand-alone drought plan could be seen to be weakly integrated while the hazard planning approach integrates it more fully with the overarching goal of protecting society from hazards.
Drought-specific mitigation plans outline the impacts of drought and ways to manage the risks associated with it, before a drought occurs. A drought response plan is designed to address a specific function of state government: contingency guidance for when a drought occurs. These plans may be connected to emergency management and/or water planning procedures. A drought mitigation plan might consider land use patterns, population distribution and growth, water storage potential, and the needs of vulnerable social groups. Mitigation actions could include a vulnerability assessment that addresses water storage and consumption across sectors, or establishing a task force or monitoring committee. A drought response plan may identify specific actions (e.g. water use restrictions) when drought reaches a certain intensity or extent, according to a pre-identified indicator’s threshold (a trigger).
A water plan monitors the supply or quality of water resources within a state. It can also include management rules, but rarely does. A water plan may investigate supply or make conservation recommendations. The focus depends geographic, climatic, and demographic characteristics. If a state is dependent on snowpack for its water supply, the water plan may include a focus on climate monitoring. If a state has plentiful surface and groundwater, a plan may focus on maintaining the quality of these resources in population centers. A water plan may specify actions if drought threatens water sources, water use, storage, and the ability to meet the population’s needs. Information about surface and groundwater management entities like conservation districts, irrigation districts, or public water suppliers may be included.
Historically, the stand-alone drought plan has been the focus of the drought planning literature (Wilhite et al., 2014; Wilhite et al., 2005; Steinemann and Cavalcanti 2006), but over time, other types arose. Federal disaster assistance eligibility is contingent on states having hazard mitigation plans. These plans must be updated and resubmitted every five years (FEMA, 2019). A multi-hazard hazard mitigation plan represents a process of engaging agencies from state government to assess and mitigate risks. The plans identify hazards in a series of profiles, and ideally include actions to reduce risk from these hazards. Under the Stafford Act (Title III, Section 322)[4] states must have these plans to be eligible for increased Federal disaster relief funding (PL 93-288). They have a drought profile with impacts of past droughts (except for Alaska), and sometimes includes an assessment of vulnerability to future droughts. The degree to which drought is addressed may depend on how it is ranked or prioritized amongst a range of other natural hazards.
A climate action plan is the newest type to address drought. They consider the impacts of climate change, along with preparation and adaptation measures. The may also consider mitigation measures such as greenhouse gas emissions reduction and energy conservation. Unlike hazard mitigation plans, these are discretionary (not required) and vary widely. A climate action plan may consider the impacts of prolonged or more intense droughts, as well as the risk of increased evapotranspiration. For example, in states dependent on snowpack for water supply, earlier snowmelt and reduced snowpack are risk factors.
[1] The drought lasted 376 weeks, according to NIDIS https://www.drought.gov/drought/states/california
[2] We describe the most intense period of the drought as the presence of D3 and/or D4 conditions in any portion of the state, as specified by the U.S. Drought Monitor.
[3] We do not wish to imply that there is no national legislation that accounts for drought planning. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does require hazard mitigation planning, of which drought is a component. However, we view drought planning as a more comprehensive endeavor that takes place in stand-alone plans, water plans, and climate action plans, in addition to hazard plans.
[4] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/15271