Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle: Are we making progress?

University of NebraskaLincoln

R

School of Natural Resources

Breaking the Hydro-illogical Cycle:

Are we making progress?

Donald A. Wilhite, Director

School of Natural Resources

University of Nebraska

The Dirty ‘30s . . a

reference point

The Great Depression will never happen again!

Responding to the 1930s Drought

• First federal response to drought• Combination of reactive and proactive

responses– Proactive responses emphasized building

institutional capacity– Creation of new federal infrastructure– Public works projects

• Federal efforts in the 1930s sets a precedence for future federal involvement in drought response

• Similar practices were followed in the 1950s, i.e., a combination of reactive and proactive response measures.

Designation of drought emergency areas, 1977.

What were the criteria used for designations?

1977

Criteria used by the Interagency Drought

Coordinating Committee

• PDSI

•Political influence

Drought impacts today are similar but more complex as more economic sectors are

affected, creating more conflicts between water users.

How do we break the cycle?

STOP!

The Cycle of Disaster ManagementThe Cycle of Disaster Management

CRISIS MANAGEMENT

RISK MANAGEMENT

. . . . requires a paradigm shift!

Movement from crisis to risk management . .

Principle Elements

of Drought Risk

Reduction Framework

University of NebraskaLincoln

R

School of Natural Resources

National Drought Mitigation National Drought Mitigation Center . . . . a Center . . . . a catalystcatalyst for for

changechange

MissionMission: To lessen societal vulnerability to drought by promoting

planning and the adoption of appropriate risk management

techniques.

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

The progression to drought mitigation planning . . . . .

Demand for mitigation planning

Development of new monitoring tools

a synergistic relationship!

New tools not only make the USDM task much easier and the finished product more reliable,these tools promote improved decisions by a diverse set of

users from local to national and from managers to policy makers.

Progress has been impressive . . . .

. . . . with more on the way!

and then along comes . . .

NIDIS

Western Governor’s Association• 1996: Recommendation for national preparation for and response

to drought. • 2000: Creation of National Drought Policy Commission.• 2003: Partnership with NOAA to improve drought monitoring and

forecasting.• 2004: Formal document published recommending NIDIS.

U.S. Congress• The 109th Congress introduced a bill (H.R. 1386/S. 802) to improve

national drought preparedness, mitigation, and response efforts, etc.Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (President’s

National Science and Technology Council)• Highlighted drought as one of the grand challenges for disaster reduction

in 2005. • Proposed actions calls for developing an implementation plan for NIDIS.

U.S. Integrated Earth Observing System• NIDIS is one of six near term opportunities identified by U.S. GEO.

Major Drivers of NIDIS

Are we there yet?

Darn!. . . but we’re making

good progress!

“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”

Dan Quayle

University of NebraskaLincoln

R

School of Natural Resources

That’s all folks!

School of Natural ResourcesSchool of Natural Resources

snr.unl.edusnr.unl.edu

dwilhite2@unl.edudwilhite2@unl.edu