    [Senate Hearing 109-1113]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 109-1113

                                    DROUGHT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 27, 2006

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    64-376                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN McCAIN, Arizona                 DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                    Chairman
    TRENT LOTT, Mississippi              JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas              Virginia
    OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine              JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
    GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada                  BARBARA BOXER, California
    GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia               BILL NELSON, Florida
    JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JIM DeMINT, South Carolina           FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
                                         MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
                 Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
            Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                 Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
       Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
       Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
                                    Counsel
                 Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
                                     ------

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION

    JIM DeMINT, South Carolina,          E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska,
        Chairman                             Ranking
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon              BILL NELSON, Florida
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 27, 2006...................................     1
    Statement of Senator DeMint......................................     1
        Prepared statement of the Western Governors' Association.....     3
    Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson..........................     2

                                   Witnesses

    Geringer, Hon. Jim, Director, Policy and Public Sector Strategy,
      Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); Wyoming
      Governor (1995-2003); Representative, The Alliance for Earth
      Observations...................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Letter, dated May 17, 2006, to Hon. Jim DeMint and Hon. E.
          Benjamin Nelson from Jim Geringer, The Alliance for Earth
          Observations...............................................    38
    Koblinsky, Dr. Chester J., Director, Climate Program Office,
      Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic
      and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce..    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Wilhite, Dr. Donald A., Director, National Drought Mitigation
      Center (NDMC); Professor, School of Natural Resources,
      University of Nebraska--Lincoln................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    14

                                    DROUGHT

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2006

                                   U.S. Senate,
            Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator DeMint. Good morning. I want to thank all our
    witnesses and all the folks who are here. And I want to
    particularly thank my Co-Chairman, Senator Nelson, for putting
    together this hearing on such an important subject.
        So, this morning we're going to be discussing severe
    drought. And I look forward to your testimony. It's an issue we
    occasionally have in South Carolina, but not nearly as often as
    we do in the Midwest. So, I, again, appreciate your being here,
    and the whole point is to develop some constructive
    recommendations on how this committee and this Congress can be
    more effective in supporting states and communities in dealing
    with drought.
        So, this hearing dovetails with a lot of other hearings
    that we've had this year. We've had one in Myrtle Beach, on
    hurricanes. I just got back last week from San Francisco, a
    hearing on earthquakes. Senator Boxer participated with me. And
    many times as we think about disasters we don't think about
    droughts, but those of you in the Midwest who have gone through
    it know how severe the impact is. Estimates are that the cost
    of droughts have been $6 to $8 billion to the whole U.S.
    economy in a year. We know there are numerous fires that have
    resulted from droughts. In the year 2000, with that wildfire
    season, it was particularly destructive, with $2 billion in
    losses. And probably most importantly, droughts can threaten
    lives. In 1988, from the drought and the hot weather, we had
    over 5,000 Americans whose deaths were attributed either to the
    dry weather or the hot weather. So, this is an important
    problem to the country.
        Cloud seeding aside, there is not much we can do about the
    droughts themselves. It's a fact of life. It's part of our
    natural climate. And either we have precipitation or snowmelt,
    or we don't, but this doesn't mean that we're helpless in how
    we face a looming drought. We can prepare. We can collect data
    to recognize when a drought is coming and how severe its impact
    might be. We can support the science that would allow us to
    better predict the severity of a drought. And, finally, we can
    combine the observations and the forecasts into a proactive
    strategy to mitigate the impact of drought.
        I'm looking forward to Dr. Wilhite's comments on the
    processes he's developed in preparing for a drought mitigation
    plan. I was pleased to see that the Administration is aware of
    this issue and has put $4 million in new money in their Fiscal
    Year 2007 budget to develop a National Integrated Drought
    Information System. So, it's good to see that the interest is
    being focused. And we want to use this committee as much as we
    can to focus additional attention on it.
        Again, I am looking forward to your testimony. Before I
    introduce our witnesses, I'd like to yield to Senator Nelson
    for his opening statement.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

        Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    I, too, am pleased that we're having this hearing today.
        The issue of drought is one that I've been involved with
    for more years than I'd ever like to think about it. And I
    appreciate having the forum of the Disaster Prevention and
    Prediction Subcommittee to talk about a disaster that has had
    such an impact, specifically on my State of Nebraska.
    Fortunately, drought conditions are improving in Nebraska in
    many areas, but we are--we have endured a number of very
    difficult years struggling with the impact drought has had on
    our economy and environment and the social implications that go
    along with a disaster of this kind.
        One of my biggest frustrations of the past few years, as an
    elected official trying to help the areas of my state
    devastated by drought, has been making people understand that
    this drought really is a disaster, as much as a hurricane or an
    earthquake or a tornado, just of a different kind. I even named
    the drought in Nebraska, Drought David, in an effort to
    crystallize the drought so that people could see that it's the
    same kind of experience, in a different way, as any other
    natural disaster.
        Unlike other natural disasters, though, droughts are much
    more difficult to identify. It's hard to miss an oncoming flood
    or tornado or a hurricane or their immediate aftermath.
    Drought, and its effects, is much harder to quantify, and it
    develops slowly. It doesn't necessarily have a clear beginning
    point or a clear ending point. And it may expand--and may span
    over an extended period of time.
        Because it's difficult to forecast and plan for droughts,
    it's especially important that we now have programs in place,
    such as the National Drought Mitigation Center at the
    University of Nebraska in Lincoln. The Drought Mitigation
    Center, among other things, maintains a web-based information
    clearinghouse, provides drought monitoring, prepares and
    provides the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor, which covers all 50
    states, and develops drought policy and planning techniques.
    I'm anxious to have Dr. Wilhite, from the Drought Mitigation
    Center, talk more about the Center and its activities. But I
    did want to highlight its importance in dealing with drought in
    this country.
        I believe it's crucial to encourage more investment in
    research programs such as the Drought Mitigation Center. The
    research done up front in monitoring drought trends--monitoring
    drought trends will help our capabilities to mitigate and
    respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. It's
    cost effective to support programs such as this. And I advocate
    for continued support for this important program.
        I've been working with Dr. Wilhite, NOAA, and the Western
    Governors' Association on legislation to establish the National
    Integrated Drought Information System--I suppose we call it
    NIDIS--with another alphabet group, with NOAA, for the purposes
    of improving drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities.
    Representatives Hall and Udall, on the House side, have already
    introduced NIDIS legislation, and I plan to introduce this
    legislation with Senator Domenici soon, on this side. And I'm
    hopeful that information that we get today will help us write a
    bill that will be effective and can garner widespread support.
        The National Drought Policy Commission recommended, in
    their May 2000 report to Congress, that this country should
    move toward a more proactive approach to drought preparedness
    and response.
        The call for improved drought monitoring and forecasting
    has also been advocated by the Western Governors' Association.
    And as a former Chairman of that association, I'm pleased that
    their interest is so significant and so positive.
        The NIDIS legislation that I want to introduce with Senator
    Domenici will authorize the much needed drought early warning
    system envisioned by the National Drought Policy Commission and
    the Western Governors' Association. If enacted, this bill will
    allow our Nation to become much more proactive in mitigating
    and avoiding the costly impacts and contentious conflicts that
    so often happen today when water shortages and droughts occur.
        I'll close by saying thank you, again, to the Chairman for
    holding this hearing. This issue is of great importance to me
    and my state. I look forward to the testimony. And it's, of
    course, a pleasure for me to welcome my former colleague and
    good friend from the state to the west of us, Governor
    Geringer, from Wyoming.
        Mr. Chairman?
        Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator.
        I have a statement from the Western Governors' Association
    that I would like to submit to the record. So, I'd just ask
    unanimous consent that this be submitted.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Certainly, without objection.
        Senator DeMint. Without objection. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

            Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Western Governors'
    Association commends you for holding this hearing on drought. With this
    statement, we would like to share with you some of WGA's perspectives
    and experiences with regard to drought preparedness and the National
    Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006.
        The Western Governors' Association is an independent, nonprofit
    organization representing the Governors of 19 states, American Samoa,
    Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Through their Association, the
    Western Governors identify and address key policy and governance issues
    in natural resources, the environment, human services, economic
    development, international relations, and public management.
        Drought is a normal part of the climate for virtually all regions
    of the United States, but it is of particular concern in the West,
    where any interruption of the region's already limited water supplies
    over extended periods of time can produce devastating impacts. Records
    indicate that drought occurs somewhere in the West almost every year.
    However, it is multi-year drought events that are of the greatest
    concern to the economic and ecological health of Western states.
        Water scarcity continually defines and redefines the West. The
    steady growth that has been characteristic for much of the West today
    creates increased demands for agricultural, municipal and industrial
    water supplies. As municipal and industrial water use increase relative
    to older agricultural uses, the demand becomes more inelastic. A farmer
    can forgo a crop year when water supplies are tight: a municipal water
    system cannot cut back or shut down without serious consequences to the
    community served. Furthermore, such competing demands as the public's
    rising concern for meeting ``quality of life'' and environmental
    objectives create water supply management challenges in times of normal
    precipitation. Drought exacerbates these challenges.
    National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005
        During the 1995-1996 drought in the Southwest and southern Great
    Plains states, WGA created a Drought Working Group, which found that
    drought is a complex and widespread natural hazard, affecting more
    people in the United States than any other natural hazard, including
    hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes, and accumulating annual estimated
    losses between $6 and $8 billion. The magnitude and complexity of
    drought hazards have increased with growing population, population
    shifts to drier climates, urbanization, and changes in land and water
    use.
        Although drought visits some part of the country every year and
    causes billions of dollars in impacts, there does not exist a permanent
    national policy to monitor, prepare for and respond to drought
    disasters. At the Federal level, droughts have historically been
    treated as unique, separate events even though there have been
    frequent, significant droughts of national consequences over the years.
    Actions are taken mainly through special legislation and ad hoc
    measures rather than through a systematic and permanent process, as
    occurs with other natural disasters. Frequently, Federal funding to
    assist states has been unavailable, or not available in a timely
    manner.
        In the 1996 WGA report Drought Response Action Plan, the Governors
    emphasized the need for incorporating mitigation and preparedness
    measures in government drought programs, and called for the development
    of ``a national drought policy or framework that integrates actions and
    responsibilities among all levels of government (Federal, tribal,
    state, regional and local).'' Following on this recommendation,
    Congress enacted the ``National Drought Policy Act of 1998, Pub. L.
    105-109, sponsored by Senator Domenici. The law established an
    ``advisory commission to provide advice and recommendations on the
    creation of an integrated, coordinated Federal policy designed to
    prepare and respond to serious drought emergencies.'' The National
    Drought Policy Commission's report was issued in May 2000.
        Based on the recommendations in the National Drought Policy
    Commission's report, WGA worked with Senator Domenici and Senator
    Baucus to develop legislation that would establish a national drought
    policy. On April 14, 2005, Senators Domenici and Baucus introduced the
    National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005, S. 802.
        The Domenici-Baucus bill would establish a comprehensive national
    drought policy through statutorily authorizing USDA as the lead Federal
    agency for drought, and delineating the responsibility for coordinating
    and integrating Federal drought assistance programs to a National
    Drought Council. S. 802 would encourage drought preparedness planning
    at all levels, and, as droughts emerge, would focus Federal funding on
    the implementation of these plans in order to proactively mitigate the
    drought's impacts. The bill would also authorize the Drought Assistance
    Fund, which would allow the Federal agencies to proactively implement
    drought programs, rather than having to wait for an emergency
    supplemental appropriation.
        The National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)
    authorized by the bill would coordinate and integrate a variety of
    observations, analysis techniques and forecasting methods in a system
    that will support drought assessment and decisionmaking at the lowest
    geopolitical level possible. NIDIS is intended to provide water users
    across the board--farmers, ranchers, utilities, tribes, land managers,
    business owners, recreationalists, wildlife managers, and
    decisionmakers at all levels of government--with the ability to assess
    their drought risk in real time and before the onset of drought, in
    order to make informed decisions that may mitigate a drought's impacts.
        The Western Governors' Association supports the National Drought
    Preparedness Act of 2005, and has urged its enactment. The Governors
    believe that enactment of the National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005
    would move the country toward a proactive approach that will avoid
    conflicts and minimize the damage caused by future droughts, thereby
    saving taxpayers money.
    The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006
        On June 21, 2004, the Western Governors unanimously adopted a
    report developed in partnership with the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) entitled, Creating a Drought Early
    Warning System for the 21st Century: The National Integrated Drought
    Information System (NIDIS). In the report, the Governors conclude that
    ``Recognition of droughts in a timely manner is dependent on our
    ability to monitor and forecast the diverse physical indicators of
    drought, as well as relevant economic, social and environmental
    impacts.'' The report describes the vision for NIDIS and offers
    recommendations for its implementation. It is available online at
    www.westgov.org.
        On behalf of the Western Governors' Association, we commend Senator
    Nelson and Senator Domenici, on NIDIS. In the House, H.R. 5136, ``The
    National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006,'' was
    introduced by Representative Ralph Hall and Representative Mark Udall.
    The Western Governors support this legislation and urge Congress to
    authorize NIDIS this year.
        There is broad basis of support for NIDIS beyond the WGA report:

       In its May 2000 report to Congress, the National Drought
            Policy Commission recommended improved ``collaboration among
            scientists and managers to enhance the effectiveness of
            observation networks, monitoring, prediction, information
            delivery, and applied research and to foster public
            understanding of and preparedness for drought.''

       The Department of the Interior's report, Water 2025:
            Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West states, ``As part of
            the effort to establish the National Drought Monitoring
            Network, Interior believes that one-stop shopping for Western
            water users on a single government website will aid in problem
            solving, particularly in critical areas. Such a site can
            provide information on snow pack, runoff, river operations,
            forecasting, and drought prediction.''

       The U.S. Group on Earth Observations has drafted a strategic
            plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS),
            the U.S. contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of
            Systems (GEOSS). The IEOS Strategic Plan identifies the
            National Integrated Drought Information System as one of six
            ``near-term opportunities.''

       In June 2005, the Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction--an
            element of the President's National Science and Technology
            Council--issued its report Grand Challenges for Disaster
            Reduction. The report finds ``Compared to all natural hazards,
            droughts are, on average, the leading cause of economic
            losses.'' The SDR report states: ``The slow onset of drought
            over space and time can only be identified through the
            continuous collection of climate and hydrologic data. To
            enhance decisions and minimize costs, drought warning systems
            must provide credible and timely drought risk information
            including drought monitoring and prediction products.'' The
            report includes a recommendation to ``build and deploy a
            national instrument system capable of collecting climate and
            hydrologic data to ensure drought can be identified spatially
            and temporally, and develop an integrated modeling framework to
            quantify predictions of drought and drought impacts useful in
            decisionmaking.''

       The President's 2007 budget request includes $7.8 billion
            for NIDIS implementation and support.

        The Western Governors believe that improved drought monitoring and
    forecasting is fundamental to a proactive approach toward drought and
    water shortages. NIDIS will allow policymakers and water managers at
    all levels of the private and public sectors to make more informed and
    timely decisions about their water resources in order to mitigate or
    avoid the impacts from droughts.
    Conclusion
        As we approach summer, many of our western states--and much of the
    country--are seeing areas in drought. According to NOAA, about 26
    percent of the contiguous U.S. is currently affected by moderate-to-
    extreme drought. Much of the Southwest had less than normal winter
    snowpack at the end of March, despite heavy snow during the month of
    March. Additionally, the January-March period was the fifth warmest
    ever recorded in the U.S., largely due to a record warm January.
        We are already seeing the impacts of drought in 2006. According to
    the National Interagency Fire Center, there have been 32,988 fires
    between January 1 and April 24 on 2,195,768 acres. This compares to the
    5-year average for this time period of 23,639 fires on 485,308 acres.
        We know from our past experiences, the costs of response efforts to
    drought have been staggering. The estimated cost of the 1988-1989
    drought was $39 billion nationwide and was, at the time, the greatest
    single year hazard-related loss ever recorded. On average, the Federal
    Government spends $6-$8 billion on drought response. Federal wildfire
    suppression costs averaged $1.16 billion per year between 2000-2005.
    Additionally, much time and money have gone into trying to address the
    water conflicts arising in many of the large river systems in the West,
    including the Missouri River, the Colorado River, the Rio Grande, the
    Klamath River Basin, and the Snake River Basin.
        The Western Governors' Association believes that enactment of the
    National Drought Preparedness Act of 2005 would move the country toward
    a proactive approach to drought that will avoid conflicts and minimize
    the damage caused by future droughts, thereby saving taxpayers money.
    As a Nation, we have successfully applied such a proactive policy
    toward other natural disasters through the Stafford Act. It is high
    time that we have a comprehensive national policy for drought.
        Furthermore, the Western Governors believe that improved drought
    monitoring and forecasting is fundamental to a proactive approach to
    addressing not only drought, but water shortages. The National
    Integrated Drought Information System will allow policymakers and water
    managers at all levels of the private and public sectors to make more
    informed and timely decisions about water resources in order to
    mitigate or avoid the impacts from droughts. WGA strongly supports the
    National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006, and urges
    its enactment this Congress.

        Senator DeMint. Now I'd like to introduce our witnesses.
    Appearing this morning is Governor Jim Geringer. He's the
    Director of Policy and Public Sector Strategy for the
    Environmental Systems Research Institute, a provider of
    geospatial information systems. He is also Representative of
    The Alliance for Earth Observations. He also served as Governor
    of Wyoming from 1995 until 2003, during a number of droughts,
    so he should have a good perspective and a lot of insights for
    this Subcommittee.
        Now, also appearing is Dr. Chet Koblinsky, the Director of
    the Climate Program Office at the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration. He will be discussing the
    Administration's work to more effectively monitor and predict
    severe drought, and I'm looking forward to his comments.
        Finally appearing is Dr. Don Wilhite, from the University
    of Nebraska. And I would like to yield to my colleague, Senator
    Nelson, to introduce this Nebraska witness.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Wilhite is Founder and Director of
    the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of
    Nebraska, Lincoln. He is also a Professor in the University's
    School of Natural Resources. His research and outreach
    activities focus on issues of drought monitoring, planning,
    mitigation, and policy, and the use of climate information in
    decisionmaking. He has collaborated with many countries and
    regional and international organizations on drought policy and
    planning issues, and he has conducted numerous workshops on
    drought planning in the U.S. and internationally.
        We're certainly happy to have him here today and share his
    experience, knowledge, and expertise in this area. And it's a
    personal pleasure for me to say welcome, Dr. Don Wilhite.
        Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator.
        And, with that, I would ask our witnesses to make a short
    opening statement. If you could keep your comments to 5
    minutes, and then we'll have some give-and-take with some
    questions. And we'll start with the Governor.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GERINGER, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND PUBLIC
                SECTOR STRATEGY, ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
              RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI); WYOMING GOVERNOR
          (1995-2003); REPRESENTATIVE, THE ALLIANCE FOR EARTH
                              OBSERVATIONS

        Mr. Geringer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
    Nelson. We appreciate the opportunity to be here.
        I am with the SRI, former Governor of Wyoming, and a
    Representative of the Alliance for Earth Observation, so I'll
    speak from the perspective of each of those, at least in part.
        As I approached the Hill this morning, we were curious
    about how hot it might be up here with all the discussion over
    the price of oil, the commodity of oil, the commodity of
    gasoline, and certainly the other commodities, like gold, that
    are high on everybody's agenda, but the commodity called water
    is going to be the dominant issue for many years to come. In
    fact, it will be the most significant commodity that we ever
    deal with from here on, considering the population and
    demographic distribution that we have in the world.
        Mr. Chairman, you mentioned natural disasters. And natural
    disasters seem to be on the increase--the level, the intensity,
    the frequency, the type, and the expectation that something
    more has to be done. And the United States is expected to lead
    the effort to predict, respond, and recover. That seems to be
    our role. Yet we have finite resources for what seems to be an
    infinite demand. You've already mentioned the nature of drought
    that natural disasters--dealing with weather, I believe this
    Subcommittee has the title of Prevention and Prediction. In the
    case of weather-related circumstances, we may not be able to
    prevent, but we can certainly do something more to predict, as
    well as to manage. As you've already mentioned, we don't have
    to just sit by and stoically accept whatever comes along. So,
    prevention, maybe not; but prediction and mitigation, I think,
    would be the key.
        Drought is different. It's slow to develop, as Senator
    Nelson said, sometimes lasting for years. You can't tell a
    beginning or an end. But drought, overall, is the absence of,
    or shortage of, water. It's a question of, how much are we
    using, how much do we have, and how much do we need?
        Drought, then, will vary, depending on the circumstance.
    Certainly, with the Drought Monitor that Dr. Wilhite's
    organization has at UNL, we can tell from the map today where
    the most intense droughts are; and we quite often relate it to
    agriculture. But it's so far beyond just agriculture--energy
    production is affected, transportation, tourism, recreation,
    our forest health, municipal water supplies, managing for
    municipalities, environment, wildlife, and human health. So,
    the losses are far beyond the numbers you've quoted, Mr.
    Chairman, because of their impact, not only in direct cost or
    insured cost, but also in lost opportunity. The problem, as I
    would define it--which means the opportunities I would define--
    run in two main categories. The first is, our current policies
    and programs, as Dr. Wilhite, I'm sure, will reinforce, foster
    dependency, rather than enabling risk management. And the
    second thing I would comment on is that our Earth Observation
    Systems, including for drought, the technologies, the
    applications, the sensors that are--that could be out there,
    and should be out there, and even are out there, they're
    neither efficient nor integrated.
        Now, on the first issue, our typical response to a disaster
    is to come in more after-the-fact than to plan better for the
    event or even mitigate or prevent it. The unintended
    consequence of always making people whole after a disaster is
    that we have created an unintended consequence that creates
    more vulnerability. People don't plan and prepare well enough
    for a disaster, or to anticipate it well enough to mitigate the
    impact on them. So, we've created a culture of expectation that
    government will always be there to make things whole, or at
    least as whole as possible. We need to break that cycle of
    reconstruction after destruction. We need to shift the focus to
    planning and prediction, even if prevention is not an option.
        And, on the second part, detection, monitoring, and
    analysis are a fragmented patchwork. There are custom
    applications that are very narrowly focused in many cases,
    sensor-specific, not networked, not well integrated. We need a
    fully integrated system of systems for observing the Earth and
    process the data that's collected, starting with drought and
    ending up with overall disaster preparedness. And integration
    of data systems is one that I would include as Appendix B to my
    written testimony. But the idea is to manage risk, whether
    you're a water manager, a conservationist, a farmer, or a
    manufacturer. Greater self-reliance through risk management,
    the redirection of funds from assistance programs into
    mitigation is more likely.
        I do support NIDIS, the National Integrated Drought
    Information System, because it allows us to enable the
    collection of large amounts of data, which we need, from
    sensors that are remote and Earth-based, data that can lead to
    information that leads to action and decisions. And that's the
    key. It's not just somebody else telling us what to do, it's
    how we decide, individually, as well as collectively, what to
    do.
        We need to develop a culture among our agencies to share
    data, applications, and predictions. And this isn't just about
    the United States. Weather is local in effect, but global in
    generation. We need to cooperate with other countries through a
    Global Earth Observation System of Systems so that we can not
    only lead the way, but remain competitive economically in the
    world. Innovation is the key to competitiveness.
        I would close, Mr. Chairman, with the comment that the
    United States element of the Global Earth Observation System of
    Systems is called IEOS, Integrated Earth Observation System.
    And I have included, as Appendix C, the most recent information
    about this effort. The Earth Observation System architecture,
    enabling an entrepreneurial environment; and the Alliance for
    Earth Observation, the 65 members of that, are listed in that
    Appendix--public sector, private sector, and academia.
        I certainly support that you move forward, Senator Nelson,
    with Senator Domenici on introducing the NIDIS bill and making
    it part of an overall system of Earth observations so that we
    can do a better job of managing risk, making better individual,
    as well as collective, decisions.
        And I would yield to questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Geringer follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Geringer, Director, Policy and Public
       Sector Strategy, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI);
        Wyoming Governor (1995-2003); Representative, The Alliance for
                               Earth Observations

        Chairman DeMint, Ranking Member Nelson, members of the Committee,
    special guests, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jim Geringer. I am the
    Director of Policy and Public Sector Strategy for Environmental Systems
    Research Institute (ESRI), the industry leader for geospatial
    information systems. I served as Governor of Wyoming from 1995 to 2003.
    I am also a Representative of the Alliance for Earth Observations, a
    nonprofit initiative to unite the private sector in the mission to
    promote the understanding and use of Earth observations for societal
    and economic benefit. My testimony today will be from my perspective of
    each of these roles.
        Of all the commodities sought in our marketplaces today, none will
    have higher priority in the future than the universal commodity--water.
    Not oil or gold or pork bellies, but water. Your hearing today is about
    water, or more specifically the absence or shortage thereof.
    Situation
        Natural disasters, both locally and globally, are increasing while
    the overall level of financial assistance available for emergency
    response in the world has been shrinking since 1992,\1\ according to a
    recent statement by the Inter-American Development Bank and a separate
    story last week by the Financial Times. Tsunamis, earthquakes, floods,
    fires, hurricanes, volcanoes, landslides and drought are in the news
    with regularity. The U.S. is expected to lead the effort to predict,
    respond and recover. We face infinite demands with finite resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Inter-American Development Bank, March 2006. http://
    www.iadb.org/SDS/ENV/site_2493_e.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Much is expected of any elected or appointed official. Lives and
    livelihoods depend upon effectively dealing with disaster. The best way
    for any of us to deal with disaster is to prevent it altogether. The
    irony is that prevention does not attract attention and many times does
    not attract funding. As Governor, if I had called a press conference to
    announce the prevention of a disaster, I would not have drawn much of a
    crowd. But I'd better be prepared to react well in response and
    recovery if one were to happen or else face harsh criticism. In the
    case of weather-related natural disasters, prevention may not be within
    our power. That doesn't mean we stoically accept what comes along if
    more can be done for prediction if not prevention of drought.
        Drought is different from other natural hazards or disasters.
    Drought is slow to develop, a silent, creeping phenomenon evolving over
    a period of months and sometimes lasting for years. Much of the Midwest
    and East Coast suffer from water shortages today, as well as Texas,
    Oklahoma, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alaska. Parts of the American
    West are in their eighth consecutive year of a prolonged drought.*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * See (Figure 1.) on page 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Impacts are complex, affecting agriculture, energy production,
    transportation, tourism, recreation, forests, municipal water supplies,
    environment, wildlife, and human health. Drought is estimated to result
    in average annual losses to all sectors of the economy of between $6-$8
    billion.\2\ First responders to a disaster deserve our full support. In
    the case of drought, the first responders are those who are affected by
    the drought.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Economic Impacts of Drought and Benefits of NOAA's Drought
    Forecasting Services, NOAA Magazine, September 17, 2002. Website: http/
    /www.noaa.gov/magazine/stories/mag51.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Problem
        The problem is two-fold. First, our Federal policy and programs
    foster dependency rather than enabling risk management. Second, our
    Earth observation systems, including for drought, are neither efficient
    nor integrated.
        On the first matter--Federal disaster relief programs for nearly
    every type of natural disaster are not well coordinated. They target
    funding for reaction rather than at planning, prevention, prediction
    and mitigation. The unintended consequence is that we are more
    vulnerable to future damage and cost because we mask the impact of the
    loss. For example, when a natural phenomenon such as drought occurs on
    a widespread basis, a disaster is declared and funds are made available
    to mitigate or eliminate the losses. Government's focus is on aid to
    victims. We have created a culture of expectation that government will
    always be there with money.
        We need to break the cycle of expectation of reconstruction after
    destruction. If we don't, we will be faced with ever increasing Federal
    assistance. We must shift the focus to planning and prediction, even if
    prevention is not an option.
        Second, detection, monitoring, and analysis today are a fragmented
    patchwork of custom applications, not networked or integrated. We
    cannot justify duplication of sensors, data acquisition or information
    infrastructure. We do not have a fully integrated system of systems for
    observing the Earth and processing the data collected.
        We are not doing enough as a Nation to assure that proper data is
    on hand to deal with a disaster on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. When
    a severe weather event occurs, it very quickly evolves into a disaster
    response event, an energy event, a transportation event, or a public
    health event. The event is rarely just about weather, just as drought
    isn't just about agriculture. We as a Nation do not have an integrated
    base of reference data and application solutions to effectively and
    promptly respond. If we look at it that way--that we as a Nation do not
    have the tools to respond to drought and other natural hazards--we can
    also say, American economic competitiveness is at risk.
        We must realize that any solution we develop to respond to drought
    and develop integrated information and tools will impact our country
    far beyond our original intent. Whether you are a state water manager,
    a conservationist, or a manufacturer, you need accurate and timely data
    and information to manage risk. And, that information provides great
    advantage to us as a nation. As Warren Isom, Senior Vice President of
    Willis Re Inc., and Board Member of the Weather Risk Management
    Association said recently, ``The weather risk market--in fact the risk-
    management business in general--has a profoundly strong interest in
    serious, systematic attempts to improve, expand and intensify the
    capture of data relating to our planet.''
        Greater self-reliance through risk management will generate savings
    from Federal assistance programs allowing the redirection of funds
    rather than necessitating new taxes.
    Solution: Technology
        On June 21, 2004, the Western Governors unanimously adopted a
    report entitled, Creating a Drought Early Warning System for the 21st
    Century: The National Integrated Drought Information System. I've
    included a copy in Appendix A of my written testimony. I strongly
    support the creation of NIDIS. The strongest case for NIDIS is to
    enable risk management by individuals, businesses and governments--
    shift from reaction and response to prediction and mitigation. With
    better sensors, data, applications, tools and ever improving technology
    we can reward risk management over resignation to the elements.
        Enhancing our ability to detect, monitor and respond will enable
    municipalities to adopt water policies that minimize or eliminate water
    shortages, farmers to plant alternative crops, ranchers to locate
    alternatives for grazing, river barges to anticipate low flows in
    navigable waterways, and health agencies to control disease.
        We should develop a culture among agencies and levels of government
    to share data, applications and predictions, then serve the results to
    the public so that we individually and collectively are more self-
    reliant and less vulnerable.
        The next drought or the next disaster can occur anywhere in the
    U.S. Strong, cooperative relationships among agencies are essential to
    a comprehensive integrated system. A description of applications and
    data approaches describing how agencies worked together in the response
    to Hurricane Katrina is included as Appendix B, GIS for the Nation.
        This isn't just about the United States. Weather is local in effect
    but global in generation. We should cooperate with other countries to
    set up a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), and with
    each other to implement the U.S. component of the multinational system,
    the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS). These systems will
    leverage our investments, programs and data, allowing us to analyze,
    model, plan and act in advance to minimize weather disasters, including
    drought.
        In today's global economy, innovation is the key to
    competitiveness. My main message to you today is: The United States
    must stay at the forefront of Earth observation and geospatial
    technologies to better forecast and mitigate natural disasters and
    thereby lead the competition.
        As U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez remarked at the
    Earth Observation Summit III on February 16, 2005, in Brussels,
    Belgium:

            ``I don't think I am overstating it when I say that I believe
            this integrated observing system will be one of those rare
            technologies that will fundamentally change the way we live,
            the way we make policy decisions, and the way we manage scarce
            and precious resources.''

    Policy
        General Earth observation policies should be set by the Congress
    and implemented cooperatively through the President's Cabinet. The
    proposed legislation would set the NIDIS up under the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). While I applaud the heroic
    support and effort of the NOAA Administrator, VADM Lautenbacher, and
    his team, I submit that NIDIS--because of its significant social and
    economic impact--should be part of an overall IEOS/GEOSS Program Office
    directly under the Secretary of Commerce.
    Moving Forward
        NIDIS, IEOS, and GEOSS are as much about service as they are
    technology. The service these integrated information systems promise to
    provide is the mitigation of the effects of natural disasters through
    better risk management. The United States must continue to maintain a
    robust observing capability through satellites, aircraft, unmanned
    aerial vehicles, buoys, and river and stream gauges. Equally important,
    we must also continue to support the important acquisition and
    transformation of data, using geospatial technologies, into useful
    information for decisionmakers.
        More than 60 countries support GEOSS. And, here in the United
    States, the private sector--industry, academia, and non-governmental
    organizations--through The Alliance for Earth Observations is working
    in close partnership with the government to take a proactive role in
    moving the IEOS/GEOSS concept forward. One of the most challenging
    aspects is designing the architecture of these systems. I am pleased to
    submit with my testimony a copy of the final workshop report, Earth
    Observation System Architecture: Enabling an Entrepreneurial
    Environment. Sixty-five representatives of some of the Nation's most
    innovative businesses and academic institutions contributed their
    knowledge and experience to help guide U.S. IEOS/GEOSS architecture
    development. A copy of the report is included in Appendix C.
        Moving forward to respond to drought requires a technology solution
    including sensors and applications. NIDIS, IEOS, and GEOSS provide such
    a solution not only for U.S. response to drought, but also to various
    natural disasters, and build our technological capabilities and
    competitiveness as a nation. We must retain leadership in this critical
    area.
        I urge the Senate to move forward with legislation to establish
    NIDIS, and begin development of the U.S. IEOS as a contribution to
    GEOSS. It will be of great benefit to our nation, its citizens, and
    countries worldwide.
                                     ______

       Appendix A--Creating a Drought Early Warning System for the 21st
          Century: The National Integrated Drought Information System*
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * The information referred to has been retained in Committee files
    and can also be found at http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/nidis.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                         Appendix B--GIS for the Nation

        The NIDIS can be the beginning step in developing a comprehensive
    national data set that allows us to plan, prepare and reduce risk, and
    then to be more effective if and when a natural disaster occurs. The
    initial response to Katrina consumed at least 4 weeks while folks
    feverishly scrambled to assemble enough basic information to know how
    to manage response and recovery. At no time was there a single
    emergency response center for the overall operation.
        The good news is the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the
    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), and the United States
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the assistance of hundreds
    of state, local governments and private citizens implemented a
    Geographic Information Systems database for areas affected by
    Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Such a database must be deployed when a
    major disaster is imminent in order to leverage critical but disparate
    datasets.
        Their aim was to meet the immediate hurricane response needs, to
    provide a resource for long-term recovery and reconstruction efforts,
    and to assist in preparedness for future hurricane seasons. Their
    effort became known as ``GIS for the Gulf,'' which includes the states
    of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. They worked to connect
    many different GIS systems and datasets into a greater whole. These
    organizations began to share, import, integrate, and synchronize
    information needed by the Emergency Operations Centers. The result was
    a comprehensive database based on a standardized, multi-scale data
    model, providing a consistent view of data across jurisdictional
    boundaries. Unfortunately, many of the most important integrated
    datasets were not assembled or available for use until 4 weeks after
    Katrina made landfall. They should have been there before.
        This system should be extended to the rest of the United States as
    ``GIS for the Nation.'' It has the potential to save lives and property
    during future events, by saving time, resources, and manpower, provided
    that the infrastructure and data systems are in place and accessible to
    those who need it prior to, during, and after an event. The concept
    applies directly to drought assessment and response through NIDIS,
    allowing better risk assessment for agriculture, economic development,
    health, homeland security, public safety, and transportation, and
    allowing government units to better prepare for and mitigate the
    effects of drought.
        GIS for the Nation would integrate essential data and imagery
    related to emergency operations, structures/critical infrastructure,
    government units, utilities, addresses, transportation, cadastral,
    hydrography, environmental, land use/land cover, base-map, elevation,
    and geodetic control. Data providers should include local, county,
    state, and Federal agencies who currently have such information at
    their disposal, but do not have the infrastructure in place to leverage
    it for prediction, prevention and mitigation.
        The database would consist of roughly 60 data layers, including
    detailed parcel information and aerial imagery, combined with a suite
    of applications that allows data to be viewed, analyzed, and
    manipulated as a decision-support system.
        Pre-event preparedness, particularly a fully integrated, deployable
    GIS infrastructure, is the most effective and valuable action that can
    and should be taken. It would improve many different emergency response
    capabilities and processes for future events. It would also provide
    enormous value for long-term recovery.

        This isn't just about Federal agencies. Local organizations and
    private industry generate and own much of the essential data and
    capability. An integrated information system must coordinate with
    statewide GIS leaders to ensure that partnerships and data sharing
    agreements are in place. The time to develop collaborative
    relationships is not during an emergency, but well before.
        GIS for the Nation would facilitate the exchange of data and
    knowledge prior to an event, including information regarding what data
    exists, where it is located, who owns it, how accessible it is, and
    what specific security levels are needed. Much of the base-map
    (framework) data has already been collected and made available through
    the National Map and through the National Integrated Land System (NILS)
    developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). NILS represents the
    essential framework but does not include all of the 60 data layers that
    are needed.
                                     ______

        Appendix C--Earth Observation System Architecture: Enabling an
       Entrepreneurial Environment (October 27-28, 2005)--Workshop Final
                                    Report *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Appendix C has been retained in Committee files.

        Senator DeMint. Thank you, Governor.
        Dr. Wilhite?

             STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD A. WILHITE, DIRECTOR,

               NATIONAL DROUGHT MITIGATION CENTER (NDMC);

                PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

                    UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA--LINCOLN

        Dr. Wilhite. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Senator Nelson,
    good to see you again. We worked together on Nebraska's drought
    plan when you were Governor, and on some sustainability issues.
    So, it's good to be with you again.
        As mentioned, I'm Don Wilhite, Founder and Director of the
    National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of
    Nebraska, Lincoln.
        I appreciate this invitation to discuss drought and drought
    management in the United States, the need to move this Nation
    to a more risk-based management approach to lessen our
    vulnerability to this creeping natural hazard, and the role of
    the National Integrated Drought Information System, or NIDIS,
    the role that it can play in this process.
        The National Drought Mitigation Center was formed in 1995.
    At the time, there was no national initiative or program that
    focused on drought mitigation, drought monitoring and
    preparedness. The NDMC is unique. Our full attention is devoted
    to building awareness of, and reducing vulnerability to, this
    drought hazard. In the past 11 years, we have made considerable
    progress, but much work remains.
        Some of the important accomplishments of the NDMC include:
    the development of an Internet drought portal that provides
    users with comprehensive information on all aspects of the
    drought hazard; networking with Federal and non-Federal
    agencies on drought monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness; a
    partnership with NOAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture on the
    development of the U.S. Drought Monitor product, and hosting
    the U.S. Drought Monitor web portal since its inception in
    1999; assisting States, tribal, and local governments in the
    development of drought plans--currently there are 38 states
    with drought plans, and an increasing number of those states
    are focusing more on mitigation versus crisis management--most
    of these states have used a drought planning methodology that
    was developed at the National Drought Mitigation Center;
    research and development on drought mitigation and drought
    monitoring tools to aid decisionmakers; development of new
    interactive web-based decision-support tools for agricultural
    producers, natural resource managers, and others; conducting
    drought planning workshops and conferences throughout the
    United States; and also the development of a new tool that was
    introduced last summer called the Drought Impact Reporter,
    which allows us to track impacts across the country in various
    sectors.
        I would like to emphasize a statement that Mr. Koblinsky is
    going to make in his presentation. I had an opportunity to see
    his oral testimony previously. He states that drought is not
    purely a physical phenomenon, it is an interplay between water
    availability and the needs of humans in the environment. This
    is a key point for us to consider. Although drought is a
    natural hazard, the way we manage or mismanage water and
    natural resources determines, to a large extent, our
    vulnerability to drought. Therefore, improving drought
    management is not only about improving monitoring and
    prediction, it is also about understanding and assessing our
    vulnerabilities and managing risk. Improved early warning and
    prediction alone will do little to reduce drought risk. We must
    deliver this information to natural resource managers and
    policymakers in a timely manner and demonstrate how this
    information can be applied in the decisionmaking process.
        I am a strong supporter of NIDIS. It has the potential to
    significantly advance the science of drought management in the
    United States. The National Drought Mitigation Center has been
    involved in the evolution of this concept from the very
    beginning. I presented the report on NIDIS to the Western
    Governors at their annual meeting in June 2004 in Sante Fe. The
    NDMC has continued to be involved with NOAA and other Federal
    agencies and the Western Governors' Association in discussions
    on this initiative. Given the NDMC's scientific expertise on
    drought and our strong linkages to the user community, the NDMC
    can be a valuable partner to NOAA in the implementation of
    NIDIS in the coming years.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I wish to thank
    you for the opportunity to discuss the programs of the National
    Drought Mitigation Center, my vision of how to improve drought
    management in the United States, and how NIDIS can enhance this
    effort. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Wilhite follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald A. Wilhite, Director, National Drought
       Mitigation Center (NDMC); Professor, School of Natural Resources,
                        University of Nebraska--Lincoln

        I appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement to the
    Senate's Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction. My name is
    Don Wilhite; I am the Founder and Director of the National Drought
    Mitigation Center (NDMC), located at the University of Nebraska in
    Lincoln. The National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) was formed in
    1995, following a sequence of severe drought years between 1987 and
    1994 that affected virtually all portions of the United States. At the
    time of the NDMC's formation, there was no national initiative or
    program that focused on drought monitoring, mitigation, and
    preparedness. I have been involved in drought-related research and
    outreach since 1980. My efforts have principally been focused on how to
    lessen the Nation's vulnerability to drought through improved
    monitoring and early warning, mitigation, and preparedness. We have
    made considerable progress, but much work remains. The National
    Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) has the potential to help
    improve the Nation's capacity to cope more effectively with severe
    drought episodes that create significant impacts on the Nation's
    economic, environmental, and social fabric.
        It is imperative to point out that drought is a normal part of the
    climate for virtually all parts of the United States. For this reason,
    we need to be prepared for droughts, and focus our attention on
    mitigation and planning strategies that would reduce impacts before
    drought strikes. On average, approximately 15 percent of the Nation is
    affected by drought each year, based on the historical record from 1895
    to present. This drought record illustrates both single and multi-year
    events; in particular the droughts of the 1930s, 1950s, 1960s, 1974-
    1977, 1987-1994, and 1996 to present are noteworthy for their
    intensity, duration, and spatial extent. During the most recent drought
    period, 35-40 percent of the country was affected and for some regions
    drought conditions persisted for 5 or more years. For example, parts of
    the Southeast, particularly Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
    and Florida experienced 3 to 4 consecutive years of drought between
    1999 and 2002. In the West, much of the Southwest, especially Arizona
    and New Mexico, experienced 5 consecutive years of drought between 2001
    and 2004 while much of Montana, Idaho, and surrounding states
    experienced severe drought for as many as 7 consecutive years since
    1999. My state, Nebraska, has experienced 6 consecutive years of
    drought.

    National Drought Mitigation Center: Objectives, Programs, and
            Activities
        The NDMC's program is directed at lessening societal vulnerability
    to drought through a risk-based management approach. The Center's
    activities include promoting and conducting research and outreach
    activities on drought monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness
    technologies; improving coordination of drought-related activities and
    actions within and between levels of government; and assisting in the
    development, dissemination, and implementation of appropriate
    mitigation and preparedness technologies in the public and private
    sectors. Emphasis is placed on research and outreach projects and
    mitigation/management strategies and programs that stress risk
    management measures rather than reactive, crisis management actions. It
    has been demonstrated that crisis management responses, such as drought
    relief, actually decrease self-reliance and, therefore, increase
    vulnerability to future drought episodes. Mitigation and preparedness
    increase self-reliance and reduce vulnerability. Programs that provide
    incentives for mitigation and preparedness are a very good investment
    for government at all levels and for the private sector as well. It has
    been demonstrated that for every dollar invested in mitigation and
    preparedness, four dollars are saved through reduced impacts when a
    natural disaster occurs. It is imperative that we shift the emphasis
    from crisis to risk management, as illustrated by the cycle of disaster
    management (Figure 2).

        To respond effectively to the Nation's needs for drought early
    warning, mitigation, and preparedness, the NDMC has been conducting
    research and outreach activities since 1995 in the following areas:

       Developing and enhancing an information clearinghouse or
            web-based drought portal on drought early warning, impact
            assessment, mitigation, preparedness, and response options for
            decisionmakers.

       Conducting and fostering collaborative research on drought
            monitoring, risk management, impact and vulnerability
            assessment, mitigation, and preparedness techniques and
            methodologies.

       Assisting state and Federal agencies, tribal and local
            governments, and regional organizations in developing
            integrated assessments of drought severity and impacts,
            including current climate/drought and water supply assessments.

       Advising policymakers and others by providing scientific and
            policy-relevant information on drought and water management
            issues.

       Organizing workshops, conferences, and seminars on drought
            preparedness planning and mitigation measures to reduce
            vulnerability to drought.

       Collaborating with and providing training for international
            scientists and facilitating the timely exchange of information
            on drought mitigation technologies with foreign governments,
            international and non-governmental organizations, and regional
            organizations.

    Understanding Vulnerability, Preparedness, and Response Strategies
        Vulnerability to drought is dynamic and influenced by a multitude
    of factors, including increasing population, regional population
    shifts, urbanization, technology, government policies, land use and
    other natural resource management practices, desertification or land
    degradation processes, water use trends, and changes in environmental
    values (e.g., protection of wetlands or endangered species). Therefore,
    the magnitude of drought impacts may increase in the future as a result
    of an increased frequency of meteorological drought, changes in the
    factors that affect vulnerability, or a combination of these elements.
    The development of a national drought policy and preparedness plans at
    all levels of government that place emphasis on risk management rather
    than following the traditional approach of crisis management would be a
    prudent step for the United States to take. Crisis management decreases
    self-reliance and increases dependence on government, as illustrated by
    the hydro-illogical cycle.

            Figure 3. The hydro-illogical cycle. (Source: National Drought
            Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska--Lincoln)

        The impacts of drought in recent years have been increasing and, it
    appears, at an accelerating rate, although a systematic national
    assessment and database of drought impacts has only recently been
    developed by the NDMC in the form of the web-based Drought Impact
    Reporter tool. FEMA (1995) estimated annual losses in the United States
    because of drought at $6-$8 billion, making drought the most costly
    natural disaster in the country. Losses from the 1988 drought have been
    estimated at more than $39 billion. The NDMC has estimated that losses
    associated with the 2002 drought exceeded $20 billion. It is important
    to note that these are estimates for a single drought year, while major
    drought events often occur over a series of years, as noted previously.
        The impacts of drought have also been growing in complexity.
    Historically, the most significant impacts associated with drought have
    occurred in the agricultural sector (i.e., crop and livestock
    production). In recent years, there has been a rapid expansion of
    impacts in other sectors, particularly energy production, recreation
    and tourism, transportation, forest and wildland fires, urban water
    supply, environment, and human health. The recent drought years in the
    western United States, for example, have resulted in impacts in non-
    agricultural sectors that have likely exceeded those in agriculture. In
    addition to the direct impacts of drought, there are also significant
    indirect impacts that, in most cases, would exceed in value the direct
    losses associated with drought episodes.
    Drought Policy and Preparedness
        In the past decade or so, drought policy and preparedness has
    received increasing attention from governments, international and
    regional organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Simply
    stated, a national drought policy should establish a clear set of
    principles or operating guidelines to govern the management of drought
    and its impacts. Creation of a national drought policy is one of the
    goals of the National Drought Preparedness Act (S. 802; H.R. 1386), and
    the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) is a
    component of this bill. National drought policy should be consistent
    and equitable for all regions, population groups, and economic sectors
    and consistent with the goals of sustainable development and the wise
    stewardship of natural resources. The overriding principle of drought
    policy should be an emphasis on risk management through the application
    of preparedness and mitigation measures. Preparedness refers to pre-
    disaster activities designed to increase the level of readiness or
    improve operational and institutional capabilities for responding to a
    drought episode. Mitigation refers to short- and long-term actions,
    programs, or policies implemented in advance of and during drought that
    reduce the degree of risk to human life, property, and productive
    capacity. These actions are most effective if done before the event.
    Emergency response will always be a part of drought management because
    it is unlikely that government and others can anticipate, avoid, or
    reduce all potential impacts through mitigation programs. A future
    drought event may also exceed the ``drought of record'' and the
    capacity of a region to respond. However, emergency response should be
    used sparingly and only if it is consistent with longer-term drought
    policy goals and objectives.
        A national drought policy should be directed toward reducing risk
    by developing better awareness and understanding of the drought hazard
    and the underlying causes of societal vulnerability. The principles of
    risk management can be promoted by encouraging the improvement and
    application of seasonal and shorter-term forecasts, developing
    integrated monitoring and drought early warning systems and associated
    information delivery systems, developing preparedness plans at various
    levels of government, adopting mitigation actions and programs, and
    creating a safety net of emergency response programs that ensure timely
    and targeted relief. A key element of an effective drought policy is
    the delivery of information in a timely manner so informed decisions
    can be made by resource managers and others. Creation of a user-
    friendly drought information system is one of the principal goals of
    NIDIS.
        The traditional approach to drought management has been reactive,
    relying largely on crisis management. This approach has been
    ineffective because response is untimely, poorly coordinated, and
    poorly targeted to drought-stricken groups or areas. In addition,
    drought response is post-impact and relief tends to reinforce existing
    resource management practices. It is precisely these existing practices
    that have often increased societal vulnerability to drought (i.e.,
    exacerbated drought impacts). The provision of drought relief only
    serves to reinforce the status quo in terms of resource management--
    i.e., it rewards poor resource management and the lack of preparedness
    planning. Many governments and others now understand the fallacy of
    crisis management and are striving to learn how to employ proper risk
    management techniques to reduce societal vulnerability to drought and,
    therefore, lessen the impacts associated with future drought events.
        In the United States, there has been some progress in addressing
    the impacts of drought through the development of preparedness plans.
    The most noticeable progress has been at the state level, where the
    number of states with drought plans has increased dramatically during
    the past two decades. In 1982, only three states had drought plans. In
    2006, thirty-eight states have drought plans. The basic goal of state
    drought plans should be to improve the effectiveness of preparedness
    and response efforts by enhancing monitoring and early warning, risk
    and impact assessment, and mitigation and response. Plans should also
    contain provisions (i.e., an organizational structure or framework) to
    improve coordination within agencies of state government and between
    local and Federal Government. Initially, state drought plans largely
    focused on response efforts aimed at improving coordination and
    shortening response time; today the trend is for states to place
    greater emphasis on mitigation as the fundamental element of a drought
    plan. Thus, some plans are now more pro-active, adopting more of a risk
    management approach to drought management. This trend needs to
    continue, and at an accelerated pace. States also need to be encouraged
    to require municipalities to develop drought preparedness plans. Some
    states (e.g., South Carolina, Kentucky, and Texas) have already adopted
    this approach.

        The growth in the number of states with drought plans suggests an
    increased concern at that level about the potential impacts and
    conflicts associated with extended water shortages and an attempt to
    address those concerns through planning. Initially, states were slow to
    develop drought plans because the planning process was unfamiliar. With
    the development of drought planning models, such as the 10-step drought
    planning process developed at the NDMC, and the availability of a
    greater number of drought plans for comparison, drought planning has
    become a less puzzling process for states. As states initiate the
    planning process, one of their first actions is to study the drought
    plans of other states to compare methodology and organizational
    structure.
        The rapid adoption of drought plans by states is also a clear
    indication of their benefits. Drought plans provide the framework for
    improved coordination within and between levels of government. Early
    warning and monitoring systems are more comprehensive and integrated
    and the delivery of this information to decisionmakers at all levels is
    enhanced. Many states are now making full use of the Internet to
    disseminate information to a diverse set of users and decisionmakers.
    Through drought plans, the risks associated with drought can be better
    defined and addressed with proactive mitigation and response programs.
    The drought planning process also provides the opportunity to involve
    numerous stakeholders early and often in plan development, thus
    increasing the probability that conflicts between water users will be
    reduced during times of shortage. All of these actions can help to
    improve public awareness of the importance of water management and the
    value of protecting our limited water resources.
        Drought mitigation plans have three essential components,
    regardless of whether they are developed at the state, national,
    regional, or local scale. First, a comprehensive monitoring and early
    warning system provides the basis for many of the decisions that must
    be made by a wide range of decisionmakers as drought conditions evolve
    and become more severe. Equally important, early warning systems must
    be coupled to an effective delivery system that disseminates timely and
    reliable information. As drought plans incorporate more mitigation
    actions, it is imperative that these actions be linked to thresholds
    (e.g., reservoir levels, climate index values) that can serve as
    triggers for mitigation and emergency response actions. Second, a
    critical step in the development of a mitigation plan is conduct of a
    risk assessment of vulnerable population groups, economic sectors, and
    region. The purpose of the risk assessment is to determine who and what
    is at risk and why. This is successfully accomplished through an
    analysis of historical and recent impacts associated with drought
    events. This risk assessment task is accomplished as part of the 10-
    step drought planning process developed by the NDMC. Third, after
    impacts have been identified and prioritized, the next step is to
    identify appropriate mitigation actions that can help to reduce the
    risk of each impact for future drought events. In many cases,
    appropriate response actions are also identified through this process,
    but these actions should not conflict with the basic goal of the
    drought mitigation plan: to reduce vulnerability to drought events. As
    noted earlier, some response actions may increase reliance on
    government and encourage the continuation of inappropriate resource
    management practices.
    Recommendations for Improving Drought Mitigation and Preparedness
       Implement the National Integrated Drought Information System
            (NIDIS) through a full partnership between NOAA and other
            Federal agencies, non-Federal agencies, and organizations,
            including the National Drought Mitigation Center, in order to
            improve monitoring and early warning systems and seasonal
            climate forecasts to provide better and more timely and
            reliable information to decisionmakers; address data gaps in
            drought monitoring and enhance networks, particularly for soil
            moisture, snow pack, and ground water; and develop new
            monitoring and assessment tools/products that will provide
            resource managers at all levels with proper decision-support
            tools at higher resolution.

       Improve knowledge of the scientific and policy communities
            and resource managers about the drought hazard.

            1.  Augment paleoclimate and historical climate research to
            better understand the drought climatology of all regions for
            more effective planning and design.

            2.  Communicate information on probabilities of single- and
            multiple-year drought events to natural resource managers and
            planners, policymakers, and the public.

       Improve the reliability of seasonal climate forecasts and
            train end users on how to apply this information to improve
            resource management decisions with the goal of reducing drought
            risk.

            1.  Develop more competitive research grant programs to fund
            research on drought prediction. In particular, there is a need
            for enhanced observations and research on both the paleoclimate
            record and the drought-related dynamics of ocean-atmosphere
            coupling.

            2.  Form a consortium of scientists to encourage collaboration
            on drought prediction.

            3.  Develop a network of scientists and end users to assess the
            practical needs of end users and how forecast information can
            be communicated more effectively to the user community to
            maximize its application.

       Assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts
            associated with drought.

            1.  Develop a standard methodology for assessing the impacts of
            drought on multiple economic sectors and the environment and
            systematically assess the losses associated with drought events
            at the local, state, and national levels.

            2.  Evaluate the effect of mitigation actions in reducing the
            impacts of drought at the local and state level.

            3.  Improve early assessments of drought impacts through the
            application of appropriate models (i.e., crop, hydrologic).

       Assess the science and technology needs for improving
            drought planning, mitigation, and response at the local, state,
            tribal, regional, and national levels.

            1.  Evaluate current drought planning models available to
            governments and other authorities for developing drought
            mitigation plans at the state and local levels of government
            and require plans to follow proposed standards or guidelines.

            2.  Develop improved triggers (i.e., links between climate/
            water supply indicators/indices and impacts) for the phase-in
            and phase-out of drought mitigation and response programs and
            actions during drought events.

            3.  Develop vulnerability profiles for various economic
            sectors, population groups, and regions and identify
            appropriate mitigation actions for reducing vulnerability to
            drought for critical sectors.

       Increase awareness of drought, its impacts, trends in
            societal vulnerability, and the need for improved drought
            management.

            1.  Initiate K-12 drought/water awareness programs/curriculum.

            2.  Launch public awareness campaigns for adult audiences,
            directed at water conservation and the wise stewardship of
            natural resources.

    Summary
        The National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of
    Nebraska--Lincoln strongly supports greater investment in research and
    policies directed at reducing this Nation's vulnerability to drought
    through a more risk-based approach. The implementation of the National
    Integrated Drought Information System is a critical step in this
    direction. Improved climate and water assessments, more reliable
    forecasts at various timescales, better decision-support tools, and
    more timely communication of this information to decisionmakers through
    an interactive delivery system will greatly enhance management of water
    and other natural resources. The NDMC will help NOAA develop an
    implementation plan for NIDIS and partner with them and other Federal
    and non-Federal entities to ensure the success of this program. My
    years of experience with drought management have convinced me that a
    wise initial investment in improved monitoring, early warning and
    prediction, mitigation, and planning will reduce this Nation's
    vulnerability to drought and concomitant impacts on economies, the
    environment, and the social well-being of its citizens.

        Senator DeMint. Thank you, Doctor.
        Dr. Koblinsky?

           STATEMENT OF DR. CHESTER J. KOBLINSKY, DIRECTOR,
             CLIMATE PROGRAM OFFICE, OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND
              ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
       ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        Dr. Koblinsky. Good morning, Senator DeMint, Senator
    Nelson. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this
    important issue.
        My name is Chester Koblinsky, and I'm the Director of
    NOAA's Climate Program Office.
        NOAA's climate programs provide the Nation with services
    and information to improve the management of climate-sensitive
    sectors, such as energy, agriculture, water, and living marine
    resources. Our services address climate change and variability
    on timescales ranging from weeks to decades for a variety of
    phenomena, including drought.
        What is drought? Well, there is no single definition of
    drought that meets all needs. Drought refers to a period of
    time when precipitation levels are abnormally low, resulting in
    a water shortage that impacts human activities and the
    environment. NOAA scientists evaluate precipitation,
    temperature, soil moisture, groundwater, and surface-water data
    for the present and recent past to determine if drought
    conditions exist. If we want to look to the future, NOAA
    scientists will use computer models, climatology, statistical
    outlooks, and projections to estimate what the future will
    bring.
        Drought is not purely a physical phenomena. There's an
    interplay between water availability and the needs of humans
    and the environment. Drought is a normal recurrent feature of
    climate. It occurs almost everywhere, although its features
    vary from region to region and from year to year. At least a
    part of the country experiences it at any given time.
        Drought is a unique natural hazard. It is slow in onset,
    does not typically impact infrastructure directly, and its
    secondary effects, such as impacts on tourism, commodity
    markets, wildfires, or hydropower are frequently larger than
    the primary effects, such as water shortages or crop losses.
        Turning my attention now to the current conditions, in the
    western United States the current drought started in 1999 and
    grew to affect 87 percent of the West at its peak, in the
    Summer of 2002. Although drought is continuing to affect parts
    of the West for the seventh consecutive year, drought
    conditions are much less expansive than in the past few years.
    At present, severe to extreme drought is restricted to a region
    from Arizona eastward through much of New Mexico and
    southeastern Colorado. Severe to extreme drought, aggravated by
    record heat in mid-April, encompasses the central and southern
    Great Plains, producing two particularly severe impacts:
    stressed winter wheat and dangerous wildfires. Farther south,
    exceptional drought, the most serious drought classification of
    the U.S. Drought Monitor, has settled into southern Texas. In
    the eastern states, severe to extreme drought recently
    developed along the northern Gulf Coast.
        NOAA's outlook for the next 3 months is for these
    conditions to persist, with the exception of improvements on
    the eastern side of the Great Plains and the Gulf Coast.
        The current conditions I have just described were provided
    by the U.S. Drought Monitor. This weekly report is the result
    of a truly collaborative effort among drought experts from
    NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National
    Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska--
    Lincoln, with input from other Federal and State agencies, as
    well as a network of over 100 experts around the country. The
    U.S. Drought Monitor provides a consensus of the current state
    of drought in all 50 States and Puerto Rico, using multiple
    objective drought indicators, such as soil moisture and stream
    flow, combined with reports of current conditions, such as
    weekly crop reports.
        The Monitor expresses drought conditions in five classes,
    ranging from abnormally dry, which could reflect a short-term
    dryness or lingering water deficits, to exceptional drought,
    which might reflect widespread crop losses or water
    emergencies. Among its varied uses, Federal officials have used
    the U.S. Drought Monitor in recent years to determine disaster
    assistance allocations to ranchers and farmers affected by
    severe drought.
        The increasing demand for drought information motivated the
    development of a broadbased plan for a National Integrated
    Drought Information System that was proposed in 2004 by the
    Western Governors' Association. This is an ambitious program to
    significantly enhance the Nation's ability to monitor and
    forecast drought. It will create a national drought early
    warning system to enable the Nation to address both responses
    to drought and proactive approaches of risk reduction.
        The implementation of the National Integrated Drought
    Information System will require building a National Drought
    Monitoring and Forecasting System, improving predictive
    capabilities, providing an interactive drought information
    delivery system for products and services, and designing
    mechanisms for improved interaction with the public.
        In response to a recommendation from the Western Governors
    for NOAA to lead the National Integrated Drought Information
    System, we have initiated its development in partnership with
    other Federal, regional, and State organizations. For example,
    the National Integrated Drought Information System has been
    identified as a near-term opportunity within the U.S.
    Integrated Earth Observing System Strategy mentioned by
    Governor Geringer. And, in this context, Federal agencies have
    worked together to identify contributions from current
    infrastructure, as well as critical gaps in observations and
    information delivery mechanisms for drought.
        If supported, we project that the National Integrated
    Drought Information System will take 5 to 6 years to fully
    implement. The President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for
    NOAA includes an increase of $5.7 million to support NIDIS. Of
    this amount, $4 million will support problem-focused drought-
    impact research specifically aimed at risk reduction, while the
    remainder addresses the Climate Reference Network and regional
    climate services. We urge the Committee to support NOAA's
    Fiscal Year 2007 budget request.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify. And I'll be pleased to answer your
    questions.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Koblinsky follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Dr. Chester J. Koblinsky, Director, Climate
     Program Office, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
    Chester (Chet) Koblinsky, Director of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Climate Program Office, which is
    part of NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. I am also
    the team leader of NOAA's Climate Mission Goal, which oversees all of
    NOAA's climate activities. Thank you for inviting me to discuss drought
    conditions in the United States and NOAA's role in drought research,
    monitoring, and forecasting.
        NOAA's climate programs provide the Nation with services and
    information to improve management of climate sensitive sectors, such as
    energy, agriculture, water, and living marine resources, through
    observations, analyses and predictions, and sustained user interaction.
    Our services include assessments and predictions of climate change and
    variability on timescales ranging from weeks to decades for a variety
    of phenomena, including drought. In my testimony I will highlight: (1)
    the current drought conditions across the Nation; (2) the drought
    outlook for 2006; (3) NOAA's drought monitoring and forecasting
    capabilities; (4) the National Drought Information System (NIDIS); (5)
    NOAA's drought research activities; and (6) NOAA's interagency
    collaborations on drought.
    Defining Drought
        In the most general sense, drought refers to a period of time when
    precipitation levels are abnormally low, impacting human activities and
    the environment. While there is no single definition of drought that
    meets all needs, drought refers to a deficiency in precipitation over a
    period of time resulting in a water shortage. Scientists evaluate
    precipitation, temperature, soil moisture, ground water, and surface
    water data for the present and recent past to determine if drought
    conditions exist. Drought is not a purely physical phenomenon, but is
    an interplay between water availability and the needs of humans and the
    environment. Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of climate. It
    occurs almost everywhere, although its features vary from region to
    region. For consistency, I will be referring to drought conditions as
    defined using the U.S. Drought Monitor methodology, unless otherwise
    noted, throughout the remainder of my statement.
        Drought is a unique natural hazard. It is slow in onset, does not
    typically impact infrastructure directly, and its secondary effects,
    such as impacts on tourism, commodity markets, transportation,
    wildfires, insect epidemics, soil erosion, and hydropower, are
    frequently larger and longer lasting than the primary effects, such as
    water shortages and crop, livestock, and wildlife losses. Drought is
    estimated to result in average annual losses to all sectors of the
    economy of between $6 to $8 billion (in 2005 dollars). The costliest
    U.S. drought of the past forty years occurred in 1988 and caused more
    than $62 billion (in 2005 dollars) of economic losses. Although drought
    has not threatened the overall viability of U.S. agriculture, it does
    impose costs on regional and local agricultural economies. Severe fire
    seasons due to drought and frequent winds can also result in billions
    of dollars in damages and fire suppression costs.
    Current Drought Status
        Drought conditions across the United States are depicted in Figure
    1. Although drought is affecting at least part of the West for the
    seventh consecutive year, drought conditions are much less expansive
    than in the recent past, with severe to extreme drought restricted to a
    relatively small region from Arizona eastward through much of New
    Mexico and southeastern Colorado.

        The protracted, multi-year drought that had been plaguing the West
    has finally loosened its grip on central and northern parts of the
    region, where both precipitation and snowpack are near- to above-normal
    since the beginning of the 2005/2006 water year (October 1, 2005). This
    precipitation, in concert with copious precipitation that fell on
    central and southern parts of the West during the 2004/2005 water year,
    gradually eliminated drought conditions and boosted reservoir levels in
    most areas to the north and west of southern Colorado, although pockets
    of moderate drought persist in portions of Wyoming. Precipitation
    totals are now above-normal for time periods extending back 2 years
    along the West Coast and no drought conditions are reported for this
    region as of late April 2006.
        There remain two aspects of the current drought which have not
    fully recovered from the multi-year dry spell, even though most of the
    West is no longer shown as abnormally dry in the Drought Monitor
    (Figure 1). First, ground water levels in some areas, such as
    southeastern Idaho, remain exceedingly low. Second, the largest
    reservoirs in the West, such as Lakes Mead (58 percent full) and Powell
    (44 percent full), have not had enough time to recharge, and remain
    well below capacity.
        Drought has been slowly intensifying since the start of the 2005/
    2006 water year across Arizona and New Mexico. During October 2005-
    April 2006, less than 50 percent of normal precipitation fell over most
    of Arizona and New Mexico, resulting in a meager snowpack and
    unseasonably high fire danger. During the first 3 months of 2006,
    wildfires consumed almost 221,000 acres of land in the Southwest Area
    (comprised of western Texas, the Oklahoma Panhandle, New Mexico, and
    Arizona), more than 5 times the average January-March total for the
    previous 9 years. Surface moisture shortages are also affecting
    agriculture with about 94 percent of New Mexico topsoils characterized
    as short or very short of moisture, and 67 percent of the state's
    winter wheat crop in poor or very poor condition as of mid-April 2006.
    A majority of both Arizona and New Mexico are now depicted as
    experiencing severe to extreme drought, according to the U.S. Drought
    Monitor. However, except for southwestern New Mexico, water supplies
    are not as problematic across the Southwest because of heavy
    precipitation that fell last water year (2004/2005) boosting reservoir
    levels.
        Moderate drought covers a significant portion of the central Great
    Plains, although recent storms have erased lingering dryness in parts
    of the northern Plains. Severe to extreme drought, aggravated by record
    heat in mid-April, encompasses the southern Great Plains from southern
    Kansas and southwestern Missouri southward through central Texas.
    Farther south, exceptional drought, the most serious drought
    classification depicted by the U.S. Drought Monitor, has settled into
    southern Texas. Moderate to heavy rainfall during March eliminated
    extreme to exceptional drought conditions in southeastern Oklahoma and
    adjacent parts of Texas and Arkansas, with additional improvement in
    late April, but a broad area of severe drought lingered in its wake.
    Record dryness occurred in 2006 with Kansas having the driest February
    on record, Oklahoma the driest November to February, and Arkansas the
    driest October to February and March to February.
        The drought in the southern Great Plains has been highlighted by
    two particularly severe impacts: stressed winter wheat and dangerous
    wildfires. As of mid-April, 78 percent of Texas winter wheat was in
    poor or very poor condition, as was 67 percent of Oklahoma winter
    wheat. In contrast, 23 percent of Kansas winter wheat and just 12
    percent of Nebraska winter wheat rated poor or very poor. Through the
    first 3 months of 2006, fire danger was frequently high in the
    Southwest, the Plains, and parts of the East, but the largest and most
    damaging wildfires have occurred in Texas and adjacent areas. A record
    season continues and as of April 20, 2006, the Texas Forest Service is
    reporting over 1.5 million acres burned in the state during 2006.
        Across northern Illinois and southern Iowa, recent heavy rains have
    greatly ameliorated or eliminated the long-term drought which began
    affecting the region during the spring of 2005.
        Severe to extreme drought has recently developed along the northern
    Gulf Coast, as 6-month rainfall from early October to mid-April totaled
    less than 50 percent of normal from southern Louisiana into southern
    Alabama, though recent thunderstorms (especially on April 21) brought
    some relief. To the east, short-term dryness recently developed along
    the eastern half of the Gulf Coast, and the central and northern
    sections of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. As a result of depleted surface
    moisture, wildfires developed across Florida in March and April, and
    fire danger remained high, while the most noticeable impact of the
    short-term dryness from the Carolinas northeastward through southern
    Maine has been a sharp drop in streamflows relative to historic
    observations for this time of year. In the New England hydrologic
    region, 23 percent of reporting gauges set new daily low flows on April
    20, 2006, with 13 percent setting low flows in the South Atlantic
    region, and 10 percent in the mid-Atlantic region. Heavy rains falling
    over the Appalachians, mid-Atlantic states, and New England on April
    21-24 have significantly eased drought concerns for the time being.
        The dryness across most of the eastern states generally developed
    over the course of the last few months. In the central Carolinas and
    adjacent Virginia, however, rainfall shortages date back much longer,
    affecting water supplies in some areas. Most of this region is
    classified as experiencing moderate to severe drought in mid-April,
    with the largest and longest-duration precipitation deficits observed
    in central North Carolina resulting in almost 10 percent of the state's
    population under mandatory water conservation measures.
    Historical Perspective
        From a historical perspective of droughts, some indicators depict
    the recent multi-year drought (1999-2006) as one of the most severe in
    the past 40 to 100 years, comparable to the severe droughts in the
    1950s and 1930s in some areas. On a national scale, 51 percent of the
    contiguous U.S. was affected by moderate to extreme drought, as defined
    by the Palmer Drought Index, during the peak of the drought in the
    Summer of 2002. This comes in third, behind 80 percent and 60 percent
    at the peak of the 1930s and 1950s national droughts, respectively.
        For the western United States, the current drought started in 1999
    and grew to affect 87 percent of the West at its peak in the Summer of
    2002. This is second only to the Summer of 1934 when 97 percent of the
    West was affected. In terms of the combined effects of intensity and
    duration, the 1999-2006 and 1986-1993 western droughts are
    unprecedented in the 110-year historical record. However, based on tree
    rings and other paleoclimatic data, droughts that have been more
    extreme than the current one have periodically affected the West during
    the last one thousand years, with some droughts lasting 20 to 30 years
    or longer. Paleoclimatic dating of these multi-decadal droughts
    coincide with evidence of societal stresses on native populations,
    including the Anasazi of the Four Corners Region. Recent population
    growth throughout the U.S. and particularly in the West has placed
    increased demands on water supplies, so drought vulnerability has
    increased because of greater numbers of water users.
    The Outlook
        In order to fully appreciate the long-term outlook for the drought,
    it is helpful to understand the meteorological causes and ongoing
    research issues. Recent research, much of it coming from NOAA
    laboratories or from NOAA-funded projects at universities and based on
    collections of statistical and physical models, shows the important
    role existing ocean and ground conditions play in establishing wind
    patterns leading to ``blocking'' in the atmosphere. Blocking is an
    important factor in setting up the weather conditions which cause
    prolonged warm and dry conditions and reduced rainfall and above-normal
    warmth. Climate trends should also be considered when forecasting the
    future evolution of a drought. Climate across much of the U.S. has been
    getting warmer for about 20-25 years, especially in the winter and
    spring. These conditions contribute to drought by increasing the rate
    of snow melt in the Spring and early Summer, and also by increasing
    water evaporation.
        The seasonal drought outlook (Figure 2) incorporates medium and
    long-range forecasts of precipitation and temperature from NOAA's
    Climate Prediction Center and also considers the Spring-Summer
    streamflow forecasts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and NOAA's
    National Weather Service. While precipitation has eliminated drought
    conditions across much of the West, recent precipitation in the
    Southwest will not be enough to make up for the extreme dryness
    experienced from October into early March. As of late April, mountain
    snow water content stood at less than 25 percent of normal for much of
    Arizona and New Mexico. As the dry season sets in, opportunities for
    further improvement will be quite limited through June. Furthermore,
    the official seasonal outlook produced by NOAA's Climate Prediction
    Center suggests that for May through July the Southwest will experience
    higher than normal temperatures which will increase mountain snow melt
    and evaporation. The latest streamflow forecasts for this spring and
    summer produced by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service and
    NOAA's National Weather Service indicate much below-normal streamflow
    for Arizona, New Mexico, southern Colorado and parts of southern Utah.
    Therefore, the seasonal drought outlook through July shows drought
    persisting over much of the region, although the monsoon season and its
    increased chance for showers and thunderstorms during July and August,
    should lead to some improvement in a few areas.

        NOAA's seasonal forecasts indicate that there is an increased
    chance for below normal rainfall during the spring and summer over the
    central and southern Plains. These forecasts also indicate an enhanced
    probability for higher than normal temperatures. Persistent drought is
    expected throughout July over southern and western Texas, eastern New
    Mexico, western Oklahoma, western Kansas, and eastern Colorado, as well
    as southern Nebraska. Ongoing drought accompanied by varying degrees of
    improvement is expected from Missouri into eastern parts of Kansas,
    Oklahoma, and Texas, and along the Gulf Coast, with more significant
    improvement over Arkansas and adjacent parts of Oklahoma and Texas.
        Elsewhere, the recent rains have reduced the odds for drought
    expansion or intensification from the mid-Atlantic states
    northeastward, but near-drought conditions will likely remain a concern
    this spring from Florida into southern Georgia.
    Drought Monitoring and Forecasting
        NOAA continues to work with its partners to improve our Nation's
    ability to monitor drought. The U.S. Drought Monitor is produced on a
    weekly basis by drought experts from four U.S. organizations (NOAA's
    National Climatic Data Center, NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the National Drought
    Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska) with input from other
    Federal and state agencies, as well as feedback from a network of over
    100 experts around the Nation. The U.S. Drought Monitor provides a
    consensus on the current state of drought in all 50 states and Puerto
    Rico using multiple objective drought indices and indicators (e.g.,
    soil moisture and streamflow) combined with reports of current
    conditions and impacts (e.g., weekly crop progress and condition
    reports) from a wide range of public and private sector partners at the
    Federal, state, and local levels. Among its varied uses, Federal
    officials have used the U.S. Drought Monitor in recent years to
    determine disaster assistance allocations to ranchers and farmers
    affected by severe drought.
        NOAA continues to develop new products to improve our drought
    monitoring capabilities. More accurate precipitation mapping
    capabilities have resulted in experimental soil moisture products that
    are now being refined in collaboration with the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA), Princeton University, and the
    University of Washington to create practical tools for monitoring soil
    moisture. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center operates a U.S.
    Precipitation Quality Control and Analysis program that produces daily
    high resolution maps of precipitation. To provide better coverage and
    more accurate measurements to aid in monitoring drought, NOAA continues
    to modernize its network of cooperative observation sites as well. NOAA
    continues to improve its drought forecasts. NOAA's Climate Prediction
    Center produces a monthly U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook which forecasts
    drought conditions over the next 3\1/2\ months. The drought outlooks
    combine information from NOAA's suite of forecast products, from daily
    to seasonal, to show where drought will likely persist, ease, or
    develop during the next season. NOAA's National Centers for
    Environmental Prediction also creates other numerous products useful
    for drought forecasting, such as 2-week soil moisture forecasts based
    on temperature and rainfall forecasts and seasonal soil moisture
    forecasts based on soil moisture pattern from previous years. These
    forecasts help farmers, land managers and others prepare for and take
    steps to manage the effects of drought.
        NOAA can report some instances where the Agency accurately
    predicted several of the recent and ongoing droughts with the seasonal
    drought outlooks, especially in recent months. The early December 2005
    Outlook predicted drought expansion in the southern Plains and the
    Southwest and improvement in the Northwest by February 2006. The mid-
    January Outlook accurately projected that drought would expand into
    Kansas and the Southwest, and this occurred by mid-March leading to
    problems with winter crops and pastures and increasing the danger of
    wildfires. The Outlook issued on March 16 warned of possible drought
    development from Florida northward into the mid-Atlantic region. By the
    end of March, drought had expanded northward into Virginia and Delaware
    and abnormal dryness had spread across Florida.
        NOAA's drought monitoring is supported by critical remotely sensed
    data provided by NOAA's Geostationary and Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellites (GOES and POES, respectively). POES satellites
    are used to monitor vegetation stress, a precursor for the early on-
    set, severity and duration of drought. In the United States, vegetation
    stress is an indicator used by farmers and the agricultural industry to
    track the condition of crops. As an indicator of biomass, satellite
    data are valuable in assessing wildland fire potential. NOAA's next-
    generation geostationary and polar-orbiting satellites--GOES-R and the
    National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
    (NPOESS)--are being designed to continue these important drought
    monitoring capabilities. We urge the Committee to support the Fiscal
    Year 2007 President's budget request for these programs.
    National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)
        Drawing from experiences with stakeholders in drought-affected
    regions and recent reports on drought and stakeholder needs, NOAA has
    identified a significant demand for a concentrated research and
    stakeholder interactions effort that: (1) assesses the Nation's
    vulnerability to drought; (2) develops products useful for drought
    planning; and (3) develops ongoing collaborations with stakeholders to
    communicate climate impact information, co-produce tools, and
    participate in drought planning activities. In response to this demand
    and a request from the Western Governors' Association (WGA), NOAA has
    taken the lead on the development and implementation of a National
    Intergrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) in partnership with
    other Federal, regional and state organizations.
        NIDIS is an ambitious program to significantly enhance the Nation's
    ability to monitor and forecast drought. It will establish a modern,
    dense network of observing locations to observe and monitor all aspects
    of drought and enhance stakeholder access to information on drought
    conditions, impacts, and forecasts. NIDIS, in turn, will be supported
    by a focused drought research program. NIDIS will create a national
    drought early warning system to enable the Nation to move from a
    reactive to a more proactive approach to drought. The vision is for
    NIDIS to be a dynamic and accessible drought information system that
    provides users with the ability to determine the potential impacts of
    drought and their associated risks and also provides the decision-
    support tools needed to better prepare for and mitigate the effects of
    drought.
        NIDIS will provide more comprehensive and timely drought
    information and forecasts which are required by numerous sectors to
    mitigate drought-related impacts. The Bonneville Power Administration
    and other hydropower authorities will benefit from enhanced water
    supply forecasts and drought information for hydropower management
    decisions. Water resource managers will have access to more information
    when balancing irrigation water rights with the needs of wildlife.
    Purchasing decisions by ranchers for hay and other feed supplies will
    be enhanced through the use of drought information to identify areas of
    greatest demand and the potential for shortages. Farmers will be better
    positioned to make decisions on which crops to plant and when to plant
    them. Municipalities and state agencies will have improved drought
    information and forecasts when allocating domestic and industrial water
    usage. Since drought information is used in allocating Federal
    emergency drought relief, improvements in monitoring networks will also
    lead to more accurate assessments of drought and, as a result,
    emergency declaration decisions that better reach out to those
    communities in need of assistance.
        A hallmark of NIDIS will be the provision of decision-support tools
    coupled with the ability for users to report localized conditions. To
    this end, NIDIS will link multi-disciplinary observations to ``on-the-
    ground'' conditions that will yield value-added information for
    agricultural, recreational, water management, commercial, and other
    sectors.
        The four key components of NIDIS are: (1) improved integrated
    observations and data systems and forecasts; (2) new tools for analysis
    and decision-support; (3) coordinated monitoring, forecast, and impacts
    research and science; and (4) improved information dissemination and
    feedback.
        The implementation of NIDIS will require: (1) building a national
    drought monitoring and forecasting system; (2) creating a drought early
    warning system; (3) providing an interactive drought information
    delivery system for products and services--including an Internet portal
    and standardized products [databases, forecasts, Geographic Information
    Systems (GIS), maps, etc]; and (4) designing mechanisms for improved
    interaction with the public (education materials, forums, etc).
        NOAA will work internally to integrate planning for the observing
    system requirements, research priorities, and operational needs of
    NIDIS. A NIDIS executive team will be established to oversee
    implementation and coordination of NIDIS among the Federal partners
    [NOAA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of
    Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), NASA] and will be facilitated by the National
    Science and Technology Council's Committee on Environment and Natural
    Resources. The result will be a sustained and coordinated interagency
    program, which will report regularly on its status, accomplishments,
    and plans for improvements.
        The expertise and tools of a number of NOAA programs are being
    brought together under the NIDIS framework to help the Nation address
    the challenge of drought. Climate services conducted in NOAA's National
    Weather Service; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and
    Information Service; and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    will support NIDIS. NOAA's cooperative institute partners, Regional
    Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs) teams, and Regional Climate
    Centers will be involved as well. NIDIS will also be supported by
    NOAA's current operational drought monitoring and outlook products and
    NOAA's applied climate research program.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for NOAA includes
    $16.2 million for Climate Observations and Services, with a $4.0
    million increase to directly support NIDIS related activities. This
    increase will sponsor integrated, problem-focused research and
    research-to-operations transition projects. Additional increases of
    $1.2 million for the Climate Reference Network and $0.5 million for
    regional climate services will help NOAA realize improvements in
    observation systems required by NIDIS. NOAA is projecting that it will
    take 5 to 6 years to fully implement NIDIS with gradual improvement in
    NOAA's drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities occurring
    throughout the implementation process.
        NIDIS is part of a larger NOAA effort over the past several years
    to deliver climate services that are produced and delivered in on-going
    consultation with affected stakeholders in order to ensure that the
    research-based insights, information products and expert opinions
    delivered are of the highest relevance and utility to the set of
    challenges at hand.
    Drought Research Activities
        NOAA research activities support drought risk assessment and
    management. The research is focused on developing predictions of
    drought onset, termination, duration, and severity and the prediction
    of multi-year to decadal drought as a function of sea surface
    temperature variability, deep soil moisture/ground water variability,
    and other factors. NOAA's research also includes assessments of
    societal, economic, and environmental vulnerability to drought to
    inform risk reduction efforts. This work objectively quantifies drought
    and its associated economic impacts to accurately quantify the monetary
    benefits of improved drought prediction and mitigation. Our methods
    incorporate uncertain drought predictions to improve public and private
    sector planning and operational decisionmaking for water supply,
    transportation, hydropower, and irrigation.
        An integral part of NOAA's drought research activities is NOAA's
    support over the last 15 years of university-based research focused on
    the use of seasonal and inter-annual climate prediction information in
    decisionmaking across a range of sectors (e.g., agriculture, water
    management, public health, forest fire management, fisheries). In
    recent years, these university-based researchers through NOAA programs,
    such as the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA),
    Sectoral Applications Research Program (SARP), and NOAA Climate
    Transition Program (NCTP), have been working with stakeholders at the
    local, state, and regional levels to determine what type of climate
    information would be useful to their decisions, and determining how
    scientific information could help to reduce vulnerability to drought,
    in particular, along with other extreme events and long-term climate
    trends (e.g., declining snowpack). NOAA-funded researchers have been
    working with farmers, ranchers, state governors' offices, water
    management agencies, ditch companies, forest fire managers, and other
    stakeholders to analyze vulnerability to climate, assess the need for
    different types of climate information, and develop information of use
    to these decisionmakers. NOAA-funded drought research activities
    support the U.S. Climate Change Research Program (CCSP), and are in
    turn enhanced by the broader CCSP research going on at universities and
    other Federal agencies. By understanding the role of drought in human
    affairs and how information on the probability of drought can be
    integrated into existing decision environments, it is possible to move
    from drought response to pro-active drought management.
        As NOAA's global climate models improve, particularly the land
    component of Earth System Models, NOAA will be able to aggressively
    focus on drought prediction in the United States, at seasonal-
    interannual timescales. In turn, as our understanding and skill at
    forecasting seasonal to interannual climate improves, the ability to
    use long-term climate models to assess regional drought risks increases
    as well. To better predict drought and other climate events, NOAA
    continues to invest in research to better understand the
    interdependencies of the ocean and land and their combined influence on
    climate.
        Recent data shows a warming trend for the past several decades over
    much of the West, especially during the winter season. Climate models,
    using historical data, accurately simulate temperature increases
    consistent with this observed long-term warming trend. These models
    project the general warming trend will continue for the remainder of
    this century. However, neither climate model projections nor
    observations show any identifiable trend in precipitation, but they do
    reveal a changing distribution of precipitation intensity, similar to
    what would be expected in a warming climate. Specifically, NOAA's
    National Climatic Data Center and other research efforts have
    demonstrated that more of our precipitation is tending to fall in
    heavier precipitation events which can ultimately impact drought
    severity through changing precipitation run-off.
        Research at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory indicates
    recent decadal swings in precipitation in the western U.S. may be
    largely attributable to decadal variations and trends in ocean
    temperatures, especially in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. The
    causes of these changes in ocean temperature are not fully understood,
    but are likely due in part to a combination of long-term climate change
    and variability in the atmosphere and ocean. Even with unchanging total
    precipitation in the western United States, continuation of current
    temperature trends may significantly influence the annual water cycle
    as well as water demand, with subsequent implications for water
    management.
        NOAA and sister science agencies in Mexico are co-leading the North
    American Monsoon Experiment (NAME), an international effort to enhance
    understanding of the sources and limits of predictability of warm
    season precipitations over North America, with emphasis on timescales
    from seasonal to interannual. Improved understanding and prediction of
    monsoon rainfall in the southwestern U.S. and Mexico is critical for
    water resource management in the region. NOAA's research community
    continues to interact with researchers, nationally and internationally,
    to improve climate and statistical models based on seasonal and longer-
    term outlooks, enabling a steady increase in our understanding of the
    causes of drought. Learning the mechanisms triggering drought will
    enable us to better forecast the likelihood of drought development
    months and years ahead of time.
        To improve NOAA's ability to detect and analyze interannual-to-
    decadal variability in climate and weather-climate trends, NOAA has
    proposed in Fiscal Year 2007 to invest in research to analyze and
    understand the causes of the 1930s and 1950s Dust Bowl droughts. One
    component of this research will be an extension of the current model-
    based reconstruction of climate back beyond 1948 to cover the entire
    20th century to enhance NOAA's ability to describe atmospheric
    conditions during the 1930s Dust Bowl. The second component in this
    effort will be research focusing on diagnosing the causes of 1930s and
    1950s droughts and identifying opportunities to improve NOAA's
    capability to forecast the onset, severity and duration of high-impact
    scale droughts. This work will help NOAA address concerns and questions
    from stakeholders about comparisons between current conditions and
    those of the 1930s and 1950s.
        NOAA drought forecasters routinely meet with researchers to explore
    methods to improve the drought forecasts. Advanced forecast methods
    based on statistical and global numerical models will continue to be
    incorporated into drought outlooks, using the best forecast tools and
    research available. We are encouraged by recent research which helps to
    explain the reasons behind drought development. Realistically, it is
    (and always will be) a continuing challenge to produce seasonal
    forecasts which are consistently accurate. However, as with our weather
    forecasts, we believe we can continuously improve.
    Collaboration With Other Agencies
        NOAA collaborates with many state and Federal agencies (e.g., USDA,
    NASA, USGS, EPA BOR, USACE, and others) and universities to understand,
    monitor, and predict drought. The U.S. Drought Monitor is only one
    example of this collaborative effort. NOAA works cooperatively with
    other agencies on research projects that can lead to improved drought
    monitoring tools. For example, we are currently working with NASA to
    incorporate additional satellite data from NASA and NOAA sensors into
    drought monitoring and forecasting. NOAA also works closely with the
    USDA on water supply forecasting in the western United States, and
    relies on the USGS for streamflow data critical to both water supply
    and flood forecasting. NOAA is also working with agencies, such as
    NASA, to improve seasonal drought forecasting. In May 2005, NOAA held a
    workshop with NASA to kick off this new effort in research
    collaboration. The workshop focused on what is needed to accelerate
    progress on drought prediction with a focus on developing capabilities
    and products that facilitate water management and agricultural
    applications for the Americas.
        Drought is a climate phenomenon with major impacts in North America
    and around the world. In today's global economy the costs and effects
    of drought extend beyond international borders and the North American
    Drought Monitor helps address this challenge. The North American
    Drought Monitor is a monthly product that the U.S. drought monitoring
    team produces in collaboration with Canadian and Mexican
    meteorologists. NOAA works with the U.S. Agency for International
    Development's Famine Early Warning System Network (USAID FEWS-NET) to
    monitor drought and significant weather events affecting water and food
    supplies in Africa, Central America, and Afghanistan. NOAA's
    contribution through a United States Agency for International
    Development--Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID-OFDA)
    partnership has resulted in the production of prototype scientific
    decision tools, such as prediction models for hydropower resource
    management in Eastern Africa where more than 70 percent of the
    countries rely on hydropower for electricity.
    Concluding Remarks
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss drought conditions in the United States and
    NOAA's role in drought research, monitoring, and forecasting. The topic
    is critical given the economic and environmental impacts of drought in
    the United States and the increasing demand for drought information to
    help to manage the demand for water. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

        Senator DeMint. Thank you.
        Let me wade in first. Obviously, we're looking for ways to
    prevent the damage--the impact of droughts, because we know
    they're coming. I think all of you mentioned the management of
    water, availability of water. And it seems what we're talking
    about is, despite precipitation, that one big part of being
    prepared is to have a consistent and predictable supply of
    water, regardless of the lack of predictability of
    precipitation.
        And my question is--and this comes back to a project I've
    been working on for years in South Carolina, just trying to
    build a reservoir, that's on Federal land, and the permitting
    process of working with the Army Corps of Engineers, the EPA,
    Department of the Interior. And it appears--and the reason
    we're looking at this is, 20 or 30 years down the road, with
    the growth in the area we need more availability of water. But
    the whole process of trying to get that done, the permitting,
    the environmental restrictions--it's going to take decades to
    do it.
        And I don't know if additional reservoir or storage
    possibilities exist anywhere to a scale that could help us in
    the vast areas of the midlands of our country, but my question
    is, is there a way to create more predictable water supplies,
    more reservoirs? And what are the obstacles to doing that? And
    I guess any of you could answer that. But is that even an
    option in the areas out west--Governor, we'll start with you.
        Mr. Geringer. Mr. Chairman, I'll give you a--perhaps just a
    slightly different view than, say, from a researcher's
    perspective. Water storage, of course, is built in two ways.
    One is a manmade structure, such as a reservoir. And you've
    mentioned that. The other is underground or groundwater. The
    hydrologic drought in many areas of our country is more
    significant than the surface drought today, because the water
    tables are being depleted, they're being mined. That's true all
    along the eastern slope of the Rockies. And it's happening in
    many other areas, as well. With times of prolonged drought or
    prolonged drawdown, it takes a long time. And I don't think we
    know enough about underground hydrology. There needs to be more
    research there.
        And so, it's not just about building more storage. It's
    better planning. I speak a lot on issues dealing with policy
    and technology, and trying to connect the two, but until you
    introduce sociology, the culture of people, that's your
    greatest challenge. How do you persuade people that this is not
    a wise choice, to build in this place or live in this place? We
    can say that there is a drought happening in, say, Washington,
    D.C. You've had a little bit less than typical precipitation
    here. So, it's classified as being partly in a drought. Is the
    Sahara in a drought? No, because it's at its normal level.
    People are not adapting to change and using risk management to
    make better choices. And I think that's the key.
        We have limits to what we can do to build storage and to
    anticipate water usage, but at some point there has to be an
    informed personal choice that, ``This is not a good thing for
    me to do,'' to build here, to do that, whatever it is, and then
    collectively, as a community, we either can provide or adopt
    land-use plans such that we don't exceed our capability to
    supply water. And that's the cultural part. That's why you're
    here.
        Senator DeMint. Yes, that's a very difficult issue. I know
    what we've dealt with, again, in South Carolina, that folks
    will move out into rural areas. The land's cheaper. There is no
    city water. There are wells. But when the drought came, they
    wanted city water, and wondered why they didn't have it when
    others did. And I see, around the country, when I go, that
    there are a lot of areas that are basically desert that have
    been heavily irrigated and depend on artificial supplies of
    water to maintain those wonderful lawns and golf courses. And I
    guess what you're saying is, that's happening everywhere as
    we're----
        Mr. Geringer. It's happening everywhere. And when you look
    at places such as Las Vegas or Phoenix and those areas that are
    arid, they've always been that way, they are not experiencing
    that much of a drought compared to other parts of the country,
    yet they're a popular place to live. And we've created a
    culture of expectation, that somehow someone will take care of
    it and minimize our risk, and I think we need to shift from
    that to a culture of self-reliance or more self-reliance, to
    where we make better choices.
        Senator DeMint. But you're saying that the ability to store
    enough water to deal with this is unlikely.
        Mr. Geringer. There's a limit to surface-water storage.
    It's obviously a wise thing to do, but there has to be an
    evaluation as to the intended or unintended impact on others.
    Look at Los Angeles and the Owens Valley, the demand on the
    Green River, the Green/Colorado combination, where Mexico is
    probably hit the hardest so far, and what happens to water
    quantity and quality. Even though we can store more water in
    the Colorado, there are other demands or needs that have
    already historically been placed on that water, and we have
    to--I think that's the purpose of an integrated information
    system, is that, for too many years, we've looked at things in
    isolation, we don't see the collateral effects of choices that
    we're making, either individually or, say, building a dam, and
    managing it with an information system that has enough data
    feeding into it that we can narrow down the unpredictability
    and make wiser choices through greater certainty on
    predictability, and not having someone else tell us the answer,
    but we discover it on our own.
        Senator DeMint. Dr. Wilhite?
        Dr. Wilhite. Yes, I'll elaborate on some of those key
    points.
        I think when we think about drought management, the drought
    is, yes, a natural hazard, but drought management is as much a
    sociological sort of an issue as anything else, because,
    really, we're talking about human behavior. And if we look at
    population growth around the United States, we've seen this
    tremendous growth in population in the West, but also an
    increasing population in your area of the country, as well. I
    think the State of Georgia's population increased by over 25
    percent between 1990 and 2000. But if you look in the West,
    such as Arizona, that the Governor referred to, you're looking
    at population growth of 40 percent in a 10-year period. And
    this is 40-percent population growth in an area that's already
    very dry and water-short.
        So, if we're going to look at future water supplies and its
    availability, surface water augmentation, groundwater recharge
    is another option. But, as you stated, when it comes to
    building new reservoirs, the regulations, the environmental
    concerns, and so forth, as well as sites that are available for
    that throughout the country, are quite limited.
        So, I think we need to be looking at conservation as a huge
    key to trying to improve this. We need to be looking at helping
    people make better decisions as to where they live and where
    they move, to put this additional demand on an already limited
    resource in many parts of the country.
        We really need to move more toward this risk-management
    approach. And one of the things that we stress to states and
    tribal governments and others that we work with is doing
    vulnerability assessments. And certainly at a State level, in
    the State of Nebraska, for example, our Department of Health
    and Human Services did a vulnerability assessment of
    communities in the state as to their vulnerability related to a
    shortage of water during a drought situation. Identify those
    communities, those regions of the country that are most at
    risk, and then you can put in place various kinds of programs,
    improve planning, develop better monitoring systems, and so
    forth, so that you are able to have earlier warning of possible
    problems in those particular areas.
        Senator DeMint. Yes, I think you mentioned development. In
    our area, along the coastline, the population is exploding. And
    they're heavily dependent on water that----
        Dr. Wilhite. Right.
        Senator DeMint.--comes from other areas. And it has to pass
    by us, in the upstate.
        Dr. Wilhite. Right.
        Senator DeMint. And the more we cutoff, the more difficult
    it is. If you look out, long-term--and I think I'm working my
    way back around to where you are with this whole integrated
    plan--and so, we have got to have a plan that gives people good
    information about the potential problems they have if they are
    going to live in different areas that are naturally water-
    short.
        But, Dr. Koblinsky, did you have a comment, before I yield
    to the Senator for his questions?
        Dr. Koblinsky. Thank you. I'd just add to what our--my
    other two colleagues have mentioned and talk a bit about how we
    might be able to facilitate the transfer of information from a
    research and operations agency like my own to users such as
    you've described, your own experiences in South Carolina.
        And this is very--in parallel with the development of the
    Integrated Information System concept. We've had a great deal
    of success in NOAA, in the research side and in the operations
    side, in transferring information, sophisticated information
    such as forecast, outlooks, and monitoring information, to the
    user in the field by providing supports to centers of
    excellence around the country that connect in a user, problem-
    driven approach to what's needed. And this has been successful
    in Hawaii. It has been successful in California. It has been
    successful in Arizona and Colorado and elsewhere--primarily to
    transfer seasonal interannual-type forecasts, but we foresee
    the same type of need, especially with a--focus on drought and
    water supply, that would be quite useful. And this is in our
    solicitation for--or the budget request of FY06, this drought
    impact research, which would be providing--developing centers
    of excellence that could provide the bridge between users like
    yourself and sophisticated tools that we're developing in the
    research community so that risk mitigation and risk reduction
    can be done in a better setting.
        Senator DeMint. Thank you.
        Senator Nelson?
        Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Koblinsky, I'd like to talk just for a minute about
    authorization funding levels that should be included in a NIDIS
    bill. The House bill currently includes a multiyear
    authorization with funding levels ranging from $12 million to
    $18 million per year over Fiscal Years 2007 to 2012. And
    obviously it's a multi-year authorization. Do you think these
    funding levels are appropriate? Or, if not, do you have other
    thoughts about what funding would be required?
        Dr. Koblinsky. Thank you, Senator.
        We've discussed these levels, of course, within our agency,
    and talked within other agencies, and this level of funding
    seems appropriate. Over the course of the last year or two, the
    community has--not only NOAA, but other agencies--have looked
    at this problem, especially from the observing system and
    information side, as I discussed, and begun to think about how
    we would develop NIDIS into a true national system, as is
    described in your plan. And we want to--we want to make sure
    that we address the five or six goals that are in the NIDIS
    plan directly. And, seeing that, it's clear that we want to
    start in a pilot formation system, working with states that are
    very interested in pilots, and communities that are affected
    now. So, observing system--capital investments for augmenting
    observing systems to meet critical needs, such as soil
    moisture, meeting data latency problems, for example, in well
    readouts and stream flows and surface temperature measurements,
    in those areas.
        Adding to our ability to improve forecast capability, we do
    have a preliminary forecast capability I talked about in the
    Drought Outlook. And trying to improve that forecasting
    capability could be facilitated through some competitive
    research and transfer of that research into an operational
    framework setting.
        We've talked about the drought impacts research, already,
    that I mentioned. Having information transfer capability is
    critical, so the discussion of a drought Internet portal, or
    portals, that would communicate information to the user in a
    unified setting so they don't get many different messages
    across the web--hopefully, they'll get a unified set of
    information. Taking lessons learned from individual state
    pilots and success stories, and transferring them to a wider
    audience across the Nation as we build it out.
        So, certainly the level that's talked about seems
    consistent in the first year, and then--and we see that more
    of--in a development in certain regions. And then to grow it
    out to a national system over a 5- to 6-year period does seem
    appropriate, sir.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Recognizing that it's difficult to get
    multi-year funding proposal authorization, as you might be
    aware, it does raise some concerns about how we have it in the
    current environment. The President's budget includes $7.8
    million for FY07. So, being able to get there is important.
        Let me ask you--and Dr. Wilhite, as well--as you think
    about forecasting and prediction and learning from current
    situations, do you believe that, by predicting, you can reduce
    what would be--what we would have to experience in the way of
    drought relief costs at a later date? In other words, by
    predicting and forecasting, can we reduce the ravages--
    financial ravage of droughts, in some cases, so that we won't
    have to be faced with such significant costs after the fact?
        Dr. Wilhite. I can go first.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Sure.
        Dr. Wilhite. Yes. I mean, I think that's really the thrust
    of what we're trying to do here. I--when we work with State
    governments, for example, to help them develop a drought plan,
    we think there are--there are three principal components of a
    good drought plan, whether it's at the tribal level, local
    level, national/State level. And first is early warning and
    prediction. Second is more mitigation-oriented. And then the
    third component is this risk and impact assessment.
        The problem is, you can't do good risk and impact
    assessment and install good mitigation kinds of actions unless
    you have the good early warning and prediction information up
    front to give you that timely delivery. And so, that is--so,
    that is very, very critical.
        We estimated--and if you look at some of the other natural-
    hazard research, it indicates that for every dollar that you
    invest in mitigation preparedness, monitoring, early warning,
    you get about $4 back, in terms of savings and impacts. If we
    can reduce those impacts, then we certainly reduce the need for
    government drought relief efforts, which takes a burden off of
    the national treasury and off the American taxpayer. And so,
    investing up front is really, I think, the key issue here.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Dr. Koblinsky, do you agree with that?
        Dr. Koblinsky. Yes, I do. I think it's very consistent with
    what we've been talking about within NOAA.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Well, having voted twice last night for
    pretty expensive drought relief, I would look for a way to
    avoid having to do that, for a lot of different reasons, not
    the least of which is that if we can help people in the process
    of their agriculture or their overall economy not to have the
    costs associated with a drought, at least reduce them,
    certainly their lives are going to be less disrupted, our
    treasury will be less interrupted, and I think we'll all live
    better off. So, I do appreciate those thoughts.
        This is for everybody. Governor Geringer recommends, in his
    written testimony, that NIDIS not be set up under NOAA, but,
    rather, be part of an overall IEOS/GEOSS program office
    directly under the Secretary of Commerce. Could you each maybe
    comment on that? And I'll let Governor Geringer bat cleanup on
    that, if he prefers.
        Dr. Wilhite. Well, OK, I can comment, at the beginning.
        Well, I certainly support the NIDIS being implemented under
    NOAA. I think the tricky issue with the National Integrated
    Drought Information System is that drought is an issue that
    spans so many different Federal agencies and so forth. We
    fragment the way we manage, monitor water in this country, and
    that's really not any different than any other country in the
    world. I mean, I see this problem all over the world. So, it's
    difficult to bring organizations together. So, if NOAA's the
    implementing agency, I think the key issue is going to be how
    to connect, coordinate with the other Federal agencies with
    non-Federal agencies to work together in the implementation of
    NIDIS, and how other Federal agencies that see some important
    needs--for example, the U.S. Geological Survey with regards to
    stream gauging and so on, if there needs to be an expansion of
    that network, that they need to be able to get access to those
    resources in order to do that as part of NIDIS, because it all
    feeds into this overall delivery system that we're talking
    about.
        So, regardless of where the home is, it needs to be an
    integrated system, it needs to be coordinated underneath the
    implementing agency.
        I do support NOAA being that implementing agency, because
    of their emphasis on monitoring and prediction. And we've
    worked closely with them throughout our history, since we were
    formed, in 1995.
        Dr. Koblinsky. Being the home agency that's being the
    requestor here, we certainly accept the challenge to take on
    the NIDIS leadership, and are very concerned and serious about
    making sure that this is a collaborative and cooperative
    venture between all Federal agencies that are appropriate, and
    State agencies, and regional points of view, as well as the
    private sector, as appropriate.
        We've begun to initiate these activities. We've found
    tremendous enthusiasm in the community, among the parties that
    I've mentioned, to re-engage on this, since the plan was first
    developed and submitted in 2004. We look forward to hosting
    some workshops this summer to get this underway and develop the
    community view on the best path forward.
        And I feel that, from the practical point of view of
    implementing observing systems, prediction systems, risk
    research and the like, that NOAA is the appropriate home. We do
    a lot of that work, certainly. And I'll let my bosses speak to
    whether or not it's appropriate to have an oversight group
    within the Department of Commerce or not.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Governor Geringer, I guess the ball's
    in your court.
        Mr. Geringer. Senator, I guess I'll qualify my remarks by
    saying there are ways that we could do it that make a lot of
    sense, and then there are ways that are being done in D.C. So--
    --
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Ben Nelson. I think we can all share those
    thoughts, yes.
        Mr. Geringer. That's why it makes a somewhat difficult
    question to answer. I believe it should be at the level where
    top policymakers act and cause things to happen. The greatest
    benefit of putting NIDIS within NOAA is, they can make things
    happen more quickly and provide a system that's targeted toward
    drought detection, mitigation, and information, so that we can
    enable things to happen.
        But, just as with so many other things, we're discovering,
    through better technology, the greater ability to evaluate the
    world around us, that we need a program office that starts to
    pull all the disparate activities together. I believe that
    could be more effectively done at the department level, at the
    Secretaries level. There certainly is the Office of Science,
    Technology, and Policy in the White House, but that's not a
    policy group. That's just an advisory group. There are many
    places where they--we could put this organization. But if we
    want to foster the integration, there are two things that need
    to be done. One would be to move it to a level where it has
    some visibility to other departments of government, and the
    second is through the oversight process that you and your
    fellow Members of Congress use. By the nature of how you
    conduct business, such as this Subcommittee hearing, it tends
    to foster fragmentation. I think you have a--an opportunity to
    see how much beyond just the reach of this committee this could
    have an impact and help foster that through the structure of
    how you view legislation, how you not only authorize funding,
    but appropriate money, so that there is an encouragement to
    agencies.
        I sat through the last 2 days with a group of people,
    including some Federal agencies. And one of the questions I
    asked them had to do with benefit delivery after a major
    disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina. And I said, ``How would
    you define success?'' And one individual from Treasury said,
    ``My definition of success is when my boss doesn't have to
    appear before Congress.''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Geringer. There's this underlying feeling that somehow
    an agency will be criticized if they don't do their little area
    that has been under the specific oversight of a Congressional
    Committee.
        So, I guess I--my answer is in two parts. One is in your
    process, the other is in the organizational structure of how we
    can fund and engage a system that truly ought to foster
    integration of information so that better decisions are made.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Well, in any event, it's clear that
    there are issues, economic issues that the Department of
    Commerce has an abiding and continuing interest in that need to
    be considered, as well. It's just the technical side of, ``Here
    are the statistics, here's what's going to happen.'' So,
    joining those together as part of the effort will certainly be
    required, regardless of where NIDIS is housed.
        Mr. Geringer. Correct.
        Senator Ben Nelson. I appreciate your suggestion. It's well
    observed and----
        Mr. Geringer. We would be----
        Senator Ben Nelson.--it's a----
        Mr. Geringer.--to draft some tentative amending language,
    just to give you an idea how it could be articulated in
    legislation.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Sure. That would be very welcomed,
    thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

                            The Alliance for Earth Observations
                                            Arlington, VA, May 17, 2006
    Hon. Jim DeMint,
    Chairman,

    Hon. E. Benjamin Nelson,
    Ranking Member,

    Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator DeMint and Senator Nelson:

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify at the April 27th Drought
    Hearing before the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and
    Preparedness. I hope that my testimony was useful to you and your
    colleagues in providing a vision for the National Integrated Drought
    Information System (NIDIS). and helped to highlight the need to develop
    technology solutions to America's resource management issues. I can
    think of no better area in which to demonstrate these technology
    solutions than the critical area of water.
        In response to your request during the hearing to provide draft
    language for an amendment to the S. 2751, I would like to offer the
    following, recommended text:

            We direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Program
            Office and proceed to implement activities associated with the
            U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), which will be
            the U.S. contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of
            Systems (GEOSS). The National Integrated Drought Information
            System (NIDIS) will be a key component of this effort. The
            office will ensure that IEOS provides an overarching framework
            for NIDIS and other U.S. observing activities. and engages non-
            Federal stakeholders in planning and implementation to ensure
            responsiveness to the needs of U.S. citizens, the public and
            private sectors, academia. and non-governmental organizations.

            Sincerely,
                                                  Jim Geringer.

        Mr. Geringer. And then you can debate the merits, which way
    you want to go. Some of it has to do with how you phase it in.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Sure.
        Mr. Geringer. I see NIDIS as a first step.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank the panelists, as well. Good to see you all.
        Senator DeMint. Just one more question, about agriculture
    and drought. All of us in the country depend on the Bread
    Basket from Senator Nelson's area and all around the middle
    part of our country. We can't necessarily plan to move fields
    and, you know, thousands of acres. As we look at--is that a
    part of this system that we're talking about, this planning
    system of how we deal with supplying the Nation and a good part
    of the world with food when a drought could severely disrupt
    that? So, I mean, is that part of the system? We haven't really
    talked too much specifically about agriculture today. So----
        Dr. Wilhite. Yes. I can comment on that.
        We've just recently initiated some major research efforts,
    in partnership with USDA's Risk Management Agency. So, we're
    continuing to develop more and more decision-support tools that
    are primarily aimed at agricultural producers. And so, what
    we're trying to do is to provide better information, more
    timely information to them at critical points during the season
    to allow them to make better-informed, hopefully risk-reduction
    types of decisions. We think that, with the technology that's
    out there today, that we can really provide that information,
    almost down to the field level, certainly within a county
    level, so that they can--you know, over the next couple of
    years as we develop these tools, they can do a better job of
    assessing their risk and making those decisions based upon
    where they are with regards to water supply, precipitation
    conditions, given their soil types, I mean, using geographic
    information systems and so on to bring a lot of this diverse
    information together to help them make these kinds of
    decisions.
        So, a lot of this is aimed at agriculture, but these
    decision-support tools, I feel, are also going to be very, very
    important for water managers, natural-resource managers, and so
    forth. So, agriculture certainly is the major sector that is
    usually associated with drought and drought impacts, but, as
    the Governor mentioned previously, there are a lot of other
    sectors that are experiencing tremendous impacts today that we
    didn't see so much of in the past, and we have to provide
    better information for those sectors, as well.
        Senator DeMint. Governor?
        Mr. Geringer. I'll add one additional remark and then give
    a personal experience, as well.
        The greatest need is for information in context. And the
    geospatial systems that are available from a variety of vendors
    today all depend on the quality of good base information so you
    can draw the comparisons, overlay the influencing factors or
    the things that may not have been apparently related before can
    be seen in context. And that's what really makes a good
    decision-support system.
        Let me give you an experience, both as a farmer and as a
    Governor. The kind of down-to-the-county-level information and
    near-term information that could be used to decide which crop
    to plant--I've decided which crop to plant, be it malt barley
    or sugar beets, depending on a forecast for near-term, let's
    say 3 months--3 to 6 months. Sugar beets are a high consumer of
    water. So is alfalfa. I would add, in parenthesis, that turf at
    golf courses and on lawns is the highest consumer of water, and
    we have far more agriculture in lawns than we do in production
    agriculture in many of our areas of the country. So, that's
    just an aside about agriculture. So, the first choice is, what
    kind of crop would I plant? And would I have the information in
    advance to do that? And I should be able to make those
    decisions and take the responsibility for it.
        Now, if you're a rancher, and you have, say, cattle, well,
    you don't just liquidate your herd, you look for alternative
    pasture--or an alternative way to carry through a water-short
    year. You can't just liquidate and buy back. You can't manage
    risk that--within those boundaries and make a living at it. So,
    there has to be a longer period of predictability.
        And then, as Governor, some of the longest impact has to do
    with forest health, both in our western States, when the year
    2000 rolled around and we had terrible fires, and also, more
    recently, in California, the San Bernardino Forest, with
    drought and the stress that resulted, beetle infestation took
    over, disease caused up to 80 percent mortality in some trees.
    We could see it coming, we could see it happening, yet people
    were still building homes in the wildland/urban interface. The
    logical thing would have been to deal with the disease as it
    was happening, perhaps thin some of the understory, clear it
    out, thin some of the trees that were dying, so that the risk
    of fire could be managed within certain boundaries. But there
    are so many contending values out there that we don't see to
    have a solid base of information well enough in hand to where
    we can make a consensus decision to take action before a
    disaster occurs, such as the fires that occurred in southern
    California.
        So, there's the long-term. You need that predictability,
    even though it's not with total certainty, to evaluate
    information, to put it in a context that the objectivity
    emerges, and, even with conflicting values, you can make wiser
    choices. So, it--each of those has a period that expands from
    the other--near-term, longer-term, very long-term--and the
    decisions that are made have to be built on credible science
    and acceptable information systems so that people that have
    differing values can finally reach a consensus on a course of
    action.
        Dr. Koblinsky. If I could just add to this, Senator. From
    the Federal perspective, there has been a long-term
    collaboration between NOAA and the Agriculture Department on
    sharing forecasts, weather forecasts and the like. And just
    yesterday I had a call from the Federal--Foreign Agricultural
    Service of the USDA with a lot of interest in engaging in
    NIDIS. They do the crop models across the globe and--as well as
    across our country. And a lot of interest in improving their
    forecast and observing system information to connect for
    improving crop models in the United States. So, I think already
    we can see not only long history between NOAA and the
    Agriculture Department, on the Federal level, but also
    immediate interest in this Integrated Drought Information
    System that we've talked about today.
        Senator DeMint. Well, this has been excellent, and I really
    want to thank our witnesses. And I think that Senator Nelson
    and I hopefully can take this information and develop it into
    something constructive that's supportive of what you're already
    doing.
        So, thank you. And thank you, again, Senator Nelson.
        Senator Ben Nelson. I want to thank the panelists, as well.
    Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]