[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, [email protected].
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.]