Drought in the United States:
Causes and Issues for Congress
Peter Folger
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Betsy A. Cody
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
July 31, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34580
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Summary
Drought is a natural hazard with potentially significant societal, economic, and environmental
consequences. Public policy issues related to drought range from how to identify and measure
drought to how best to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate drought impacts, and who should
bear associated costs. This report provides information relevant to drought policy discussions by
describing the physical causes of drought, drought history in the United States, examples of
regional drought conditions, and policy challenges related to drought.
By summer 2012, drought has extended across nearly two-thirds of the United States and has
adversely affected agricultural producers. As of mid-July 2012, more than 1,000 counties have
been designated as disaster counties by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. The designation makes
qualified farmers and ranchers eligible for low-interest emergency loans. The 2012 drought is
fueling interest in near-term issues, such as current (and recently expired) federal programs and
their funding, and long-term issues, such as improving drought forecasting and the mix of drought
relief and mitigation actions and federal water project and agency preparedness and role in relief.
What is drought? Drought is commonly defined as a lack of precipitation over an extended
period, usually a season or more, relative to some long-term average condition. History suggests
that severe and extended droughts are inevitable and part of natural climate cycles. While forecast
technology and science have improved, regional predictions remain limited to a few months in
advance.
What causes drought? The physical conditions causing drought in the United States are
increasingly understood to be linked to sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the tropical Pacific
Ocean. Studies indicate that cooler-than-average SSTs have been connected to the severe western
drought in the first decade of the 21st century, severe droughts of the late 19th century, and
precolonial North American “megadroughts.” The 2011 severe drought in Texas is thought to be
linked to La Niña conditions in the Pacific Ocean.
What is the future of drought in the United States? The prospect of extended droughts and more
arid baseline conditions in parts of the United States could suggest new challenges to federal
programs and water projects, which were conceived or constructed largely on the basis of 20th
century climate conditions. Some studies suggest a transitioning of the American West to a more
arid climate, possibly resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, raising
concerns that the region may become more prone to extreme drought than it was in the 20th
century. Some models of future climate conditions also predict greater fluctuations in wet and dry
years.
What is federal drought policy? Although drought impacts can be significant, no comprehensive
national drought policy exists. Developing a national policy would be challenging because of split
federal and non-federal responsibilities, the existing patchwork of federal programs, and
differences in regional conditions, risks, and available responses. In 2000, the National Drought
Policy Commission provided recommendations to Congress on improving drought policy.
Congress has acted on some of the recommendations (e.g., authorizing the National Integrated
Drought Information System), but not others (e.g., creation of a National Drought Council and a
fund to support drought planning). Given current conditions, Congress may review the
functioning and adequacy of existing federal responses and programs (e.g., access to and level of
assistance provided, incentives for mitigation of drought risk, preparedness of federal facilities).
Congressional Research Service
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Drought in North America: Summer of 2012 .................................................................................. 2
What Is Drought?............................................................................................................................. 3
Drought Is Relative.................................................................................................................... 4
Drought Is Multifaceted ............................................................................................................ 4
Drought Classification............................................................................................................... 5
Recent Examples: Texas, California, and Colorado River Basin .............................................. 6
Drought in Texas—2011 and 2012...................................................................................... 6
The 2007-2009 California Drought and Outlook for 2012 ................................................. 8
The 2012 Conditions in the Colorado River Basin ............................................................. 9
What Causes Drought in the United States? .................................................................................. 10
Prehistorical and Historical Droughts in the United States ..................................................... 12
Responding to and Planning for Drought ...................................................................................... 13
Federal Aid .............................................................................................................................. 14
Federal Facilities and Drought ................................................................................................ 15
Drought Forecasts for the United States ........................................................................................ 17
Policy Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 19
Legislative Action.................................................................................................................... 21
The National Drought Policy Act of 1998......................................................................... 21
National Drought Preparedness Legislation and the 2008 Farm Bill................................ 22
National Integrated Drought Information System............................................................. 23
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. Drought Conditions in North America, Comparing June 2011 with June 2012............... 3
Figure 2. Extent of Drought in the United States on May 8, 2012 .................................................. 5
Figure 3. Comparison of Drought Conditions in Texas in 2010, 2011, and 2012 ........................... 7
Tables
Table A-1. Drought-Related Federal Response and Recovery Authorities.................................... 25
Appendixes
Appendix A. Drought-Related Federal Response and Recovery Authorities ................................ 25
Appendix B. Excerpts from the 2000 National Drought Policy Commission Report to
Congress ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Introduction
The likelihood of extended periods of severe drought, similar to conditions experienced centuries
ago, and its effects on 21st century society in the United States raise several issues for Congress.
Drought often results in agricultural losses, which can have local, regional, and national effects. It
also can impact other industries and services, including power and energy resource production,
navigation, recreation, municipal water supplies, and natural resources such as fisheries, aquatic
species, and water quality. Addressing drought on an emergency basis is costly to individuals,
communities, and businesses. Additionally, millions and sometimes billions of dollars in federal
assistance can be expended in attempting to manage drought’s social consequences.
Drought has afflicted portions of North America for thousands of years. Severe, long-lasting
droughts may have been a factor in the disintegration of Pueblo society in the Southwest during
the 13th century, and in the demise of central and lower Mississippi Valley societies in the 14th
through 16th centuries.1 In the 20th century, droughts in the 1930s (Dust Bowl era) and 1950s were
particularly severe and widespread. In 1934, 65% of the contiguous United States was affected by
severe to extreme drought.2
Drought conditions are broadly grouped into five categories: (1) abnormally dry, (2) moderate,
(3) severe, (4) extreme, and (5) exceptional.3 Some part of the country is almost always
experiencing drought at some level. Since 2000, no less than 7% of the land area of the United
States has experienced drought of at least moderate intensity each year.4 The land area affected by
drought of at least moderate intensity varies by year and also within a particular year. For
example, since 2000, the total U.S. land area affected by drought of at least moderate intensity
has varied from as little as 7% (August 3, 2010) to as much as 46% (September 10, 2002). Based
on weekly estimates of the areal extent of drought conditions since 2000, the average amount of
land area across the United States affected by at least moderate-intensity drought has been 25%.
While the previous percentages refer to the extent of drought nationally, there is particular
concern about those locations experiencing the most intense drought conditions. Nearly every
year, extreme drought5 affects some portion of the country. Since 2000, extreme drought or drier
conditions have affected approximately 6% of the nation on average.6 During August 2002,
extreme drought extended over 19% of the country. Since 2000, exceptional drought conditions
have affected approximately 1% of the nation on average. Of particular note were the conditions
between June and October 2011; exceptional drought occurred over the largest land area—greater
than 9%—during those months, with the affected areas concentrated in Texas.
1 Edward R. Cook, et al., “North American drought: reconstructions, causes, and consequences,” Earth-Science
Reviews, vol. 81 (2007): pp. 93-134. Hereafter referred to as Cook et al., 2007.
2 Donald A. Wilhite, et al., Managing Drought: A Roadmap for Change in the United States (Boulder, CO: The
Geological Society of America, 2007), p. 12; at http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/06drought/roadmap.pdf.
3 These are the categories used by the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC). The NDMC helps prepare the
U.S. Drought Monitor and maintains its website.
4 NDMC data collected since 2000. U.S. Drought Monitor at the NDMC in Lincoln, NE. See
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/dmtabs_archive.htm.
5 Extreme drought is the fourth of five categories indicating drought conditions, ranging from abnormally dry to
exceptional drought, according to the National Drought Mitigation Center.
6 In some years or months, however, no part of the country was under extreme or exceptional drought. For example,
from January 2000 through early April 2000, extreme or exceptional drought did not affect any portion of the country.
Congressional Research Service
1
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
This report discusses how drought is defined (e.g., why drought in one region of the country is
different from drought in another region), and why drought occurs in the United States. How
droughts are classified, and what is meant by moderate, severe, and extreme drought
classifications, are also discussed. The report briefly describes periods of drought in the country’s
past that equaled or exceeded drought conditions experienced during the 20th century. This is
followed by a discussion of the future prospects for a climate in the West that would be drier than
the average 20th-century climate. The report concludes with a primer on policy challenges for
Congress, such as the existing federal/non-federal split in drought response and management and
the patchwork of drought programs subject to oversight by multiple congressional committees.
An exhaustive discussion of each policy challenge is beyond the scope of this report.
Drought in North America: Summer of 2012
In mid-July 2012, the extent of the drought conditions was significant: over 70% of the land area
of the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) was affected by abnormally dry and drought
conditions.7 The intensity of the drought varied across the country, but the regions of extreme and
exceptional drought were clustered across the Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, and in the
Southeast, particularly Georgia. The widespread nature of drought conditions in the Midwest and
Great Plains in the summer of 2012 has led to the deterioration of U.S. crop conditions. Forty-five
percent of the corn crop and 35% of the soybean crop were listed in poor to very poor conditions
for the week ending on July 23, 2012, and conditions for both commodities had deteriorated for
seven straight weeks leading up to July 23. These ratings for corn and soybeans represented the
worst conditions for any time of year since 1988.8
Notably, portions of the United States actually suffered from more intense drought conditions in
2011, although the extent of the affected area was smaller compared to 2012. Figure 1 shows that
Texas and the southern portions of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, and portions of Florida
experienced exceptional drought conditions (the worst category of drought) at the end of June
2011, while the northern tier of the country experienced normal conditions. Nearly 12% of the
contiguous United States was in exceptional drought conditions in late June 2011, compared to
less than 1% of the country in late June 2012.9 Although less severe, the 2012 drought as of July
affected broader swaths of the agricultural heartland compared to 2011. The 2012 experience
illustrates that the extent, timing, and particular features of areas affected by drought—dryland
versus irrigated farm regions, or regions that are still recovering from previous droughts—are
important in addition to the relative severity of drought conditions.
7 For the contiguous United States, approximately 80% of the land area was affected by abnormally dry or drought
conditions. U.S. Drought Monitor, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/.
8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Blog, Agricultural Weather and Drought Update-7/23/12,
http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/07/23/agricultural-weather-and-drought-update-%E2%80%93-72312/. In 1988, there were
significant agricultural end other economic losses from drought, with some estimates putting its impacts at 0.78% of
GDP (Roger Pielke Jr.’s Blog, “Comparing 2012 Drought Costs to 1980 and 1988,” press release, July 26, 2012). The
extent of the 2012 drought across broad areas of the contiguous United States has led to increased concern over crop
conditions and possible impacts to commodity prices, with particular concern for agricultural sectors sensitive to feed
supplies and prices, such as livestock (e.g., beef and dairy). However, the extent of the economic damage due to
drought is not yet known.
9 U.S. Drought Monitor, Drought Monitor Archive Tables, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/dmtabs_archive.htm.
Congressional Research Service
2
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Figure 1. Drought Conditions in North America,
Comparing June 2011 with June 2012
Source: North American Drought Monitor, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/nadm/.
Notes: These drought intensity classifications represent broad-scale conditions. Local conditions may vary. The
drought intensity classifications are discussed in detail in the text. Drought conditions are not analyzed in the
gray shaded areas of northern Canada. Regions in northern Canada outside of the gray shaded area may not be
as accurate as other regions in North America due to limited information.
What Is Drought?
Drought has a number of definitions; the simplest may be a deficiency of precipitation over an
extended period of time, usually a season or more.10 Drought is usually considered relative to
some long-term average condition, or balance, between precipitation, evaporation, and
transpiration by plants (evaporation and transpiration are typically combined into one term:
evapotranspiration).11 An imbalance could result from a decrease in precipitation, an increase in
evapotranspiration (from drier conditions, higher temperatures, higher winds), or both. It is
important to distinguish between drought, which has a beginning and an end, and aridity, which is
restricted to low rainfall regions and is a relatively permanent feature of climate (e.g., deserts are
regions of relatively permanent aridity).12
Higher demand for water for human activities and vegetation in areas of limited water supply
increases the severity of drought. For example, drought during the growing season would likely
be considered more severe—in terms of its impacts—than similar conditions when cropland lies
10 NDMC, http://www.drought.unl.edu/DroughtBasics/WhatisDrought.aspx.
11 Evapotranspiration may be defined as the loss of water from a land area through transpiration from plants and
evaporation from the soil and surface water bodies such as lakes, ponds, and manmade reservoirs.
12 Permanently arid conditions reflect the climate of the region, which is the composite of the day-to-day weather over a
longer period of time. Climatologists traditionally interpret climate as the 30-year average. See NDMC,
http://www.drought.unl.edu/DroughtBasics/WhatisClimatology.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
3
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
fallow. For policy purposes, drought often becomes an issue when it results in a water supply
deficiency: Less water is available than the average amount for irrigation, municipal and
industrial supply (M&I), energy production, preservation of endangered species, and other needs.
These impacts can occur through multiple mechanisms: decreased rainfall and soil moisture
affecting dryland farming, low reservoir levels decreasing allocations for irrigation, low stream
flows limiting municipal and industrial withdrawals, decreased exchange of water in lakes
resulting in water quality problems limiting recreation (e.g., blue-green algae restrictions in
multiple lakes in Oklahoma and Texas during 2011 and 2012 drought conditions). At the national
level, drought is monitored and reported by the National Drought Mitigation Center in an index
known as the U.S. Drought Monitor, which synthesizes various drought indices and impacts, and
represents a consensus view of ongoing drought conditions between academic and federal
scientists. Drought can also relate and contribute to other phenomena, such as fires and heat
waves.13
Drought Is Relative
Drought and “normal” conditions can vary considerably from region to region. For example, in
May 2012, the cities of Lubbock, TX, and Athens, GA, were within areas of extreme drought,
according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.14 (See Figure 2.) However, extreme drought means
something different to Lubbock, in northwest Texas, than it does for Athens, in north central
Georgia. Lubbock receives an average total of 3.26 inches of precipitation for the three-month
period from February through April of each year.15 In contrast, Athens receives an average of
12.06 inches over the same time period.16 From February 2012 through April 2012, Athens
received 6.03 inches, which equates to 1.85 times the average precipitation normally received in
Lubbock over that time period, but is only 50% of what Athens receives on average. Both cities
faced extreme drought compared to normal conditions, but what defines normal for each city
differs substantially.
To deal with these differences, meteorologists use the term meteorological drought—usually
defined as the degree of dryness relative to some average amount of dryness and relative to the
duration of the dry period. Meteorological drought is region-specific because atmospheric
conditions creating precipitation deficiencies vary from region to region, as described above for
Lubbock and Athens.
Drought Is Multifaceted
In the past, U.S. Drought Monitor maps used an “A” to indicate that the primary physical effects
are agricultural (crops, pastures, and grasslands) and an “H” to indicate that the primary impacts
of drought are hydrological (to water supplies such as rivers, groundwater, and reservoirs). When
both effects are apparent, the letters are combined, appearing as “AH.” In the newer versions of
the maps, such as the one shown in Figure 2, the “A” and “H” are replaced with an “S” and “L.”
These are experimental designations, according to the National Drought Mitigation Center, which
13 For more on fire, see CRS Report RL30755, Forest Fire/Wildfire Protection, by Kelsi Bracmort.
14 See U.S. Drought Monitor, http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html.
15 The National Weather Service Forecast Office, Lubbock, Texas,
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lub.
16 National Weather Service Forecast Office, Peachtree City, GA, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=
ffc.
Congressional Research Service
4
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
produces the U.S. Drought Monitor maps.17 The “S” designation is intended to indicate a
combination of drought indices that reflect impacts that respond to precipitation over several days
up to a few months (short-term effects). These would include impact to agriculture, topsoil
moisture, unregulated streamflows, and aspects of wildfire danger. The “L” designation
approximates responses to precipitation over several months up to a few years (long-term effects).
These would include reservoir levels, groundwater, and lake levels. Figure 2 shows that the
region around Lubbock, TX, is designated as L, whereas the region closest to Athens, GA, shows
an SL, indicating a combination of short-term and long-term effects.
Figure 2. Extent of Drought in the United States on May 8, 2012
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor, at http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/, May 8, 2012. Modified by CRS.
Note: The areas delineated on the map as “drought impact types” depict regions where reports of specific
impacts (e.g., short term (S) or long term (L) impacts) have been reported and tallied. For more information, see
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/tools/edb/droughtblends.php.
The U.S. Drought Monitor maps also indicate the intensity of a drought, ranging from abnormally
dry (shown as D0 on the maps) to exceptional drought (shown as D4). How these conditions are
assessed and how drought is classified are discussed below.
Drought Classification
To assess and classify the intensity and type of drought, certain measures, or drought indices, are
typically used. Drought intensity, in turn, is the trigger for local, state, and federal responses that
can lead to the flow of billions of dollars in relief to drought-stricken regions.18 The classification
17 The complete designations are referred to as experimental objective blends of drought indicators,
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/tools/edb/droughtblends.php.
18 For example, the Palmer Drought Index has been widely used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to determine
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
of drought intensity, such as that shown in Figure 2 for May 8, 2012, may depend on a single
indicator or several indicators, often combined with expert opinion from the academic, public,
and private sectors. The U.S. Drought Monitor uses five key indicators,19 together with expert
opinion, with indices to account for conditions in the West where snowpack is relatively
important, and with other indices used mainly during the growing season.20 The U.S. Drought
Monitor intensity scheme—D0 to D4—is used to depict broad-scale conditions but not
necessarily drought circumstances at the local scale. For example, the large regions depicted as
red in Figure 2 faced extreme to exceptional drought conditions in May 2012, but they may
contain local areas and individual communities that experienced less (or more) severe drought.21
Recent Examples: Texas, California, and Colorado River Basin
Drought in Texas—2011 and 2012
In early May of 2011 over 80% of Texas was experiencing extreme drought, and nearly 50% of
the state was in exceptional drought, the most severe level of drought intensity published by the
National Drought Mitigation Center.22 The 2011 drought in Texas represented a dramatic shift
compared to the same time period in 2010, when less than 6% of the total land area in Texas was
experiencing drought conditions, with no exceptional drought conditions anywhere in the state.
(See Figure 3, comparing 2010, 2011, and 2012.) In May 2012 the eastern half of Texas had
recovered from extreme or exceptional conditions, which—as of May 8, 2012—were affecting
24% and 7% of the state, respectively.
Drought conditions worsened in Texas through the beginning of October 2011, when 88% of the
state experienced exceptional drought conditions (and only 3% of the state was not classified as
extreme or exceptional drought).23 Drought conditions generally improved throughout the rest of
2011, but large portions of the state were still affected by extreme or exceptional drought until
late winter and early spring of 2012, when the eastern portion of the state recovered to normal or
abnormally dry conditions (the least severe category) because of above-normal rainfall from
December 2011 through February 2012.24
According to Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon, 2011 may be the worst one-year
drought on record for Texas.25 Compounding the effects of abnormally low precipitation, the
(...continued)
when to grant emergency drought assistance. See NDMC, http://drought.unl.edu/Planning/Monitoring/
ComparisonofIndicesIntro/PDSI.aspx.
19 The five key indicators include the Palmer Drought Index, the Climate Prediction Center soil moisture model, U.S.
Geological Survey weekly streamflow data, the Standardized Precipitation Index, and short- and long-term drought
indicator blends. For a discussion of drought indices, see NDMC, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/current.html.
20 U.S. Drought Monitor, http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/classify.htm.
21 The “S” and “L” terms in Figure 2 give information on the nature of the drought in the affected region. For more
information on the reasoning behind the classification schemes, see http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/classify.htm.
22 U.S. Drought Monitor, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/dmtabs_archive.htm.
23 See the U.S. Drought Monitor, Texas, on October 4, 2011, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/archive.html.
24 “Climate Abyss: Weather and Climate Issues with John Nielsen-Gammon,” Texas Drought Update, March 23, 2012,
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/03/texas-drought-update/.
25 Office of the Texas State Climatologist, “Texas Drought Officially the Worst Ever,” August 4, 2011,
http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2011/08/04/texas-drought-officially-the-worst-ever/.
Congressional Research Service
6
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
June-August average temperature in Texas was approximately 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit greater than
any previous Texas summer since 1895 and 5 degrees Fahrenheit (F) greater than the long-term
average.26 The 2011 U.S. Drought Monitor showed that Texas had been experiencing both
hydrological and agricultural drought, indicating that the drought has caused deficiencies in water
supplies as well as deficiencies of water to crops, plants, and grasses.
Figure 3. Comparison of Drought Conditions in Texas in 2010, 2011, and 2012
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor, http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/, Modified by CRS.
The most severe Texas drought overall occurred from 1950 to 1957, and had substantial impacts
on water supplies across the state because it lasted over many years. Because of the longevity and
severity of the 1950s drought, municipal water supplies in Texas today are designed to withstand
a drought of similar magnitude, according to the state climatologist.27 It is difficult to predict
whether drought conditions in Texas will persist through 2012 and longer. Long-term
precipitation patterns in Texas are influenced by a configuration of sea surface temperatures
known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). According to the Texas state climatologist, the
current PDO configuration associated with relatively dry weather in Texas has been present since
1998.28 Similar conditions also prevailed from the 1940s through the 1960s, encompassing the
Texas drought of record (1950-1957).
26 John W. Nielsen-Gammon, The 2011 Texas Drought: A Briefing Packet for the Texas Legislature, October 31, 2011,
p. 29, http://climatexas.tamu.edu/files/2011_drought.pdf.
27 Office of the Texas State Climatologist, “Texas Drought Officially the Worst Ever,” August 4, 2011,
http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2011/08/04/texas-drought-officially-the-worst-ever/.
28 John W. Nielsen-Gammon, The 2011 Texas Drought: A Briefing Packet for the Texas Legislature, p. 41.
Congressional Research Service
7
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Drought Conditions Affecting the Rio Grande Project in 2011 and 2012
The 2011 and 2012 drought conditions in Texas and the Southwest have affected the amount of water in the Rio
Grande river, which flows south through New Mexico to form the U.S. border between Texas and northern Mexico.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Rio Grande Project, which furnishes irrigation water for approximately 178,000
acres in New Mexico and Texas, as wel as electric power, includes the Elephant Butte dam and reservoir and the
Caballo Dam and reservoir. Both dams and reservoirs are in New Mexico, and about 60% of the lands receiving
irrigation water are in New Mexico. Elephant Butte dam and reservoir provide year-round electric power generation
and water during the irrigation season. Water released from Elephant Butte during winter power generation is stored
downstream in the Caballo reservoir for irrigation use during the summer. About 40% of the lands receiving water
from the project are in Texas, and water is also provided for diversion to Mexico to irrigate about 25,000 acres in the
Juarez Valley. The timing of the water releases in 2012 for delivery to Mexico and their potential impacts on U.S.
regional interests (e.g., potential conveyance losses because releases for Mexico would not be timed with deliveries to
U.S. water districts) have raised some concerns among some U.S. stakeholders about how scarce regional water
resources are to be managed during these dry conditions. Mexican growers sought the surface water deliveries
because pumping problems had impaired their ability to start the agricultural season using groundwater.
Inflow to Elephant Butte reservoir in 2011 was less than 15% of the 30-year average for March through July and is
expected to be 23% for 2012. The 2011 drought exacerbated low flows into the reservoir; flows into the reservoir
have exceeded average runoff values only three times in the past 15 years (1997, 2005, and 2008). As a result, the
Elephant Butte reservoir was at 9.6% of the combined reservoir capacity of 2.23 million acre-feet in early September
2011. For April 2012, it was at 17.9% of capacity. Consequently, the average water allocation from the Rio Grande
Project in 2011 was approximately 43% (although water available to individual water districts varies). The 2012
allocation is projected to be 20.5%, due to cumulative low inflows in the reservoirs. In contrast, the average allocation
in 2009 was 100%.
Due to low water levels, water deliveries from the Rio Grande Project to the irrigation district in Texas (El Paso
County Water Improvement District No. 1) as wel as to the city of El Paso ended on September 10, 2011. Under a
full allocation, the water deliveries normally extend through mid- or late-October. Because of 2011 conditions, the
New Mexico portion of the project, operated by the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, stopped taking surface water
deliveries in mid-July 2011. Rio Grande Project water users were receiving a 20% al ocation of water supplies as of
April 1, 2012.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Rio Grande Project, http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=
Rio+Grande+Project; Texas Agrilife Research Center at El Paso, “Drought Watch on the Rio Grande,” September 2,
2011, and May 1, 2012; email from Dionne Thompson, Chief, Congressional and Legislative Affairs, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, September 15, 2011; personal communication with Filiberto Cortez, Division Manager, El Paso Field
Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, May 2, 2012; letter from Patrick R. Gordon, Texas Commissioner, Rio Grande
Compact Commission, to Edward Drusina, Commissioner, United States Section, International Boundary and Water
Commission, April 9, 2012.
The 2007-2009 California Drought and Outlook for 2012
The 2007-2009 California drought29 was complicated by decades of tension over water supply
deliveries for irrigation and M&I uses, and the preservation of water flows to protect threatened
and endangered species. Dry conditions that began in 2007 continued through the 2009 water
year (October 2008 through September 2009) and into the fall of 2009. According to the
California Department of Water Resources, the 2007-2009 drought was the 12th-driest three-year
period in California history since measurements began.30 Although hydrological conditions were
classified as below normal in 2010 and “wet” (well above average) in 2011, the 2012 water year
29 For more information about the hydrology and policy issues involved in the 2007-2009 California drought, see CRS
Report R40979, California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory Water Supply Issues, by Betsy A. Cody, Peter
Folger, and Cynthia Brougher.
30 California Department of Water Resources, California’s Drought of 2007-2009—An Overview, September 2010,
http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/drought/docs/DroughtReport2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
is projected to be “dry” (well below normal).31 Above-average reservoir storage at the end of
2011 will mitigate reductions to water users; even so, water deliveries to state and federal water
project contractors have been restricted for 2012.32
During the drought years, drought conditions changed in the state so that some parts of the state
experienced more intense drought than others at different times of the year. For example, spring
rains reduced the intensity of the drought in some areas—parts of the state classified as extreme
in January 2009 were classified as severe in the late spring of that year. Nearly all of California
was classified as abnormally dry or under drought conditions through the fall of 2009 until rain
and snow in the late fall and early winter of 2010 relieved drought conditions in parts of the state,
including the Sierra Nevada. On March 30, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown proclaimed that the
drought was over.33 Most of California remained drought-free from spring 2010 through
December 2011—although the winter precipitation in 2011 was abnormally low. The 2012
Drought Monitor shows moderate drought conditions for most of California’s Central Valley from
January 2012 through April 2012.
California’s dry conditions from 2007 through 2009 exacerbated an already tight water supply,
where federal and state water deliveries had been reduced in response to a court order to prevent
extinction of the Delta smelt.34 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s decision to declare drought in
2008 reflected the meteorological constraints on water supply together with court-imposed
restrictions on water supplies to protect endangered species, and long-standing restrictions to
protect water quality in the Delta. This combination of factors underscores why drought is
complex and not always simply a result of dry conditions.
Similar factors are still in play today. Water deliveries from state and federal water projects for
2012 are restricted due to legal actions to protect threatened and endangered species, water
quality requirements, and hydrological factors. (For more information on project water deliveries,
see CRS Report R40979, California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory Water Supply Issues,
by Betsy A. Cody, Peter Folger, and Cynthia Brougher
The 2012 Conditions in the Colorado River Basin
Spanning parts of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, the
Colorado River basin is a critical water supply for the West and portions of northwestern Mexico.
Based on inflows observed over the last century, the river is over-allocated, and some contend
that supply and demand imbalances are likely to increase in the future.35 Drought in part of the
basin, particularly the upper basin, which is the source of most of the river’s flow, exacerbates
tensions over the sharing of the resource and results in difficult tradeoffs among the multiple uses
31 For information on water year classifications and water allocations to federal water contractors in California, see
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/PA/water/.
32 Ibid.
33 Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., “A Proclamation by the Governor of the State of California—Drought,”
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=16997.
34 The Delta smelt is a species of fish. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Kempthorne, No. 1:05-cv-1207 OWW
GSA (E.D. Cal., December 14, 2007).
35 Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study,
Phase 4: Development and Evaluation of Opportunities for Balancing Water Supply and Demand, November 2011,
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/OptionsSubmittalReport.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
of water (e.g., municipal, agricultural, hydropower, energy, recreation, and ecosystem and species
demands). How water resources are allocated among these uses within a state is largely
determined by state water law, compliance with federal and state laws (including environmental
and resource management laws and regulations), and court decisions.
According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, severe and extreme drought dominated the conditions in
the Upper Colorado River basin in July 2012. Although 2011 was a wet water year, upper basin
snowpack over the 2011-2012 winter was low,36 and the snow melted early in the runoff season—
one month earlier than normal due to high temperatures in March and April.37 This early runoff,
combined with high reservoir levels carried over from 2011, produced a somewhat paradoxical
situation of combined storage in upper basin reservoirs of 127% of average in April 2012,38 while
inflows to the reservoirs were projected to be well below normal. Reservoir inflow in the basin
reflect 2012 being a very dry year because of low snowpack, but not as dry as conditions in 2002,
when extreme and exceptional drought covered much of the entire basin.39 Low water availability
in the Colorado River basin has effects beyond the basin boundaries. For example, Colorado
River water is transported from Colorado’s Western Slope to the state’s Front Range; this water
represents a significant contribution to the water available for agricultural and municipal uses in
many eastern Colorado counties. It is expected that the region’s drought impacts, such as poor
range, pasture, and dryland crop conditions and exacerbated wildfire potential, will result from a
combination of these water conditions and warmer than average weather from March through the
end of 2012.40
What Causes Drought in the United States?
The immediate cause of drought is:
the predominant sinking motion of air (subsidence) that results in compressional warming or high
pressure, which inhibits cloud formation and results in lower relative humidity and less
precipitation. Regions under the influence of semi permanent high pressure during all or a major
portion of the year are usually deserts, such as the Sahara and Kalahari deserts of Africa and the
Gobi Desert of Asia.41
Prolonged droughts occur when these atmospheric conditions persist for months or years over a
certain region that typically does not experience such conditions for a prolonged period.42
36 Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Westwide Snotel Current Snow Water
Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal, May 1, 2012, http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/pdfs/NIDIS_01_May_2012.pdf.
37 Letter from Water Resources Group, Bureau of Reclamation to All Colorado River Annual Operation Plan (AOP)
Recipients, April 24-Month Study, April 10, 2012, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/24Month_04.pdf.
Hereafter Water Resources Group, April 10, 2012.
38 Ibid. High inflows in spring and summer of 2011 improved storage levels at basin reservoirs; for instance, Lake
Powell increased its storage from 53% in 2010 to 64% in 2011.
39 Letter from Water Resources Group, Bureau of Reclamation to All Colorado River Annual Operation Plan (AOP)
Recipients, July 24-Month Study, July 10, 2012, http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/24Month_07.pdf.
40 Western Water Assessment and NIDIS, The 2012 Drought in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, July 2012,
http://www.drought.gov/imageserver/NIDIS/DEWS/UCRB/docs/WWA-NIDIS_July_2012_Drought_update.pdf.
41 See NDMC, at http://drought.unl.edu/DroughtBasics/PredictingDrought.aspx.
42 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
10
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Predicting drought is difficult because the ability to forecast surface temperature and precipitation
depends on a number of key variables, such as air-sea interactions, topography, soil moisture,
land surface processes, and other weather system dynamics.43 Scientists seek to understand how
all these variables interact and to further the ability to predict sustained and severe droughts
beyond a season or two in advance, which is the limit of drought forecasting abilities today.
In the tropics, a major portion of the atmospheric variability over months or years seems to be
associated with variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Since the mid- to late 1990s,
scientists have increasingly linked drought in the United States to SSTs in the tropical Pacific
Ocean. Cooler than average SSTs in the eastern tropical Pacific region—“la Niña-like”
conditions—have been shown to be correlated with persistently strong drought conditions over
parts of the country, particularly the West.44 A number of recent studies have made the connection
between cooler SSTs in the eastern Pacific and the 1998-2004 western drought,45 three
widespread and persistent droughts of the late 19th century,46 and past North American
“megadroughts” that occurred between approximately 900 and 1300 A.D.47 The precolonial
megadroughts apparently lasted longer and were more extreme than any U.S. droughts since
1850, when instrumental records began. Some modeling studies suggest that within a few decades
the western United States may again face higher base levels of dryness, or aridity, akin to the 900-
1300 A.D. period.48
El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
Under normal conditions, the trade winds blow toward the west in the tropical Pacific Ocean, piling up the warm
surface waters so that the ocean surface off Indonesia is one-half meter higher than the ocean off Ecuador. As a
result, deep and cold water flows up to the surface (upwelling) off the west coast of South America. The upwelling
waters are 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than waters in the western Pacific. During El Niño, the
trade winds relax, upwelling off South America weakens, and sea surface temperatures rise. The El Niño events occur
irregularly at intervals of 2-7 years, and typically last 12-18 months. These events often occur with changes in the
Southern Oscillation, a see-saw of atmospheric pressure measured at sea level between the western Pacific and Indian
Ocean, and the eastern Pacific. Under normal conditions, atmospheric pressure at sea level is high in the eastern
Pacific, and low in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans. As implied by its name, the atmospheric pressure oscillates,
or see-saws, between east and west; and during El Niño the atmospheric pressure builds up to abnormal y high levels
in the western tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans—the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. During a La Niña, the
situation is reversed: Abnormally high pressure builds up over the eastern Pacific, the trade winds are abnormally
strong, and cooler-than-normal sea surface temperatures occur off tropical South America. Scientists use the terms
ENSO or ENSO cycle to include the full range of variability observed, including both El Niño and La Niña events.
Source: Tropical Ocean Atmosphere Project, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/ensodefs.html.
43 Ibid.
44 Cook et al., 2007.
45 Hoerling, Martin and Arun Kumar, “The perfect ocean for drought,” Science, vol. 299 (January 31, 2003), pp. 691-
694. Hereafter referred to as Hoerling and Kumar, 2003.
46 Herweiger, Celine, Richard Seager, and Edward Cook, “North American droughts of the mid to late nineteenth
century: a history, simulation and implication for Mediaeval drought,” The Holocene, vol. 15, no. 2 (January 31, 2006),
pp. 159-171. Hereafter referred to as Herweiger et al., 2006.
47 Cook et al., 2007.
48 Richard Seager et al., “Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North
America,” Science, vol. 316 (May 25, 2007): pp. 1181-1184.
Congressional Research Service
11
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Although the relationship between cooler than normal eastern tropical Pacific SSTs (La Niña-like
conditions) and drought is becoming more firmly established, meteorological drought is probably
never the result of a single cause. Climate is inherently variable, and accurately predicting
drought for one region in the United States for more than a few months or seasons in advance is
not yet possible because so many factors influence regional drought. What is emerging from the
scientific study of drought is an improved understanding of global linkages—called
teleconnections by scientists—between interacting weather systems, such as the El Niño-
Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. (See box for a description of ENSO.) For example, some
scientists link La Niña conditions between 1998 and 2002 with the occurrence of near-
simultaneous drought in the southern United States, Southern Europe, and Southwest Asia.49
Prehistorical and Historical Droughts in the United States
Some scientists refer to severe drought as “the greatest recurring natural disaster to strike North
America.”50 That claim stems from a reconstruction of drought conditions that extends back over
1,000 years, based on observations, historical and instrumental records where available, and on
tree-ring records or other proxies in the absence of direct measurements.51 What these
reconstructions illustrate is that the coterminous United States has experienced periods of severe
and long-lasting drought in the western states and also in the more humid East and Mississippi
Valley. The drought reconstructions from tree rings document that severe multidecadal drought
occurred in the American Southwest during the 13th century, which anthropologists and
archeologists suspect profoundly affected Pueblo society. Tree ring drought reconstructions also
document severe drought during the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries in the central and lower
Mississippi Valley, possibly contributing to the disintegration of societies in that region.52
More recently, a combination of tree ring reconstructions and other proxy data, historical
accounts, and some early instrumental records identify three periods of severe drought in the 19th
century: 1856-1865 (the “Civil War drought”), 1870-1877, and 1890-1896.53 The 1856-1865
drought, centered on the Great Plains and Southwest, was the most severe drought to strike the
region over the last two centuries, according to one study.54 The 1890-1896 drought coincided
with a period in U.S. history of federal encouragement of large-scale efforts to irrigate the
relatively arid western states under authority of the Carey Act.55 Congressional debate also
occurred over a much larger federal role in western states irrigation, which led to the Reclamation
Act of 1902.
49 Hoerling and Kumar, 2003.
50 Cook et al., 2007.
51 Proxies are indirect measurements typically used where direct measurements are unavailable. Tree rings can be used
as a proxy for measuring dryness and drought. Similarly, ice cores from glaciers and polar caps can be used as proxies
for measuring atmospheric temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations from thousands of years ago.
52 Cook et al., 2007.
53 Herweiger et al., 2006.
54 Ibid.
55 The Carey Act, signed into law on August 18, 1894 (Chapter 301, Section 4, 28 Stat. 422), initially made available
up to 1 million acres of federal land in each state, provided that the state met several requirements for the eventual
development of water resources for reclamation. Some observers have suggested that the failure of the Carey Act to
foster irrigation projects in all the land made available, compounded in part by the 1890-1896 drought, led to the
Reclamation Act of 1902 and the emergence of the Bureau of Reclamation in the 20th century. (See Marc Reisner,
Cadillac Desert (New York, New York, Penguin Books, 1986)).
Congressional Research Service
12
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
In the 20th century, the 1930s “Dust Bowl” drought and the 1950s Southwest drought are
commonly cited as the two most severe multiyear droughts in the United States.56 (The 1987-
1989 drought was also widespread and severe, mainly affecting the Great Plains but also
instigating extensive western forest fires, including the widespread Yellowstone fire of 1988.)
According to several studies, however, the 19th and 20th century severe droughts occurred during a
regime of relatively less arid conditions compared to the average aridity in the American West
during the 900 to 1300 A.D. megadroughts. One study indicates that the drought record from 900
to 1300 A.D. shows similar variability—drought periods followed by wetter periods—compared
to today, but the average climate conditions were much drier and led to more severe droughts.57
Responding to and Planning for Drought
Several recent droughts triggered federal responses. When a drought is declared for a locality or
region by the U.S. President, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, or a state governor, it sets in motion a
series of alerts, recommendations, activities, and possible restrictions at the local, regional, or
state level, depending on the drought length and severity. Ultimately, a multi-year severe drought
could initiate a federal response and transfer of federal dollars to the affected area.
Before drought severity reaches a level triggering a federal response, many states take action. For
example, the governor of Alabama issued a drought declaration on March 21, 2008, placing the
10 northernmost counties under an emergency drought declaration level, in accordance with the
draft Alabama Drought Management Plan.58 The emergency drought declaration level for
Alabama is its most extreme category of drought. According to Alabama’s plan, declaring drought
does not “automatically invoke a required response from the various categories of water users;”59
however, upon confirmation of a drought emergency, the governor’s office may issue “public
statements that a drought emergency exists, disaster declarations, and the appropriate
implementation of water conservation and drought emergency ordinances.”60 The National
Drought Mitigation Center posts online copies of drought management, mitigation, or response
plans for states and localities, nationwide.61 The California and Texas governors also have in
recent years issued state drought emergency declarations triggering state drought assistance.
Some states have also instituted water banks and water transfer mechanisms to deal with water
supply shortages (e.g., California, Idaho, and Texas).
56 Fye, F., D.W. Stahle, and E.R. Cook, “Paleoclimate analogs to twentieth century moisture regimes across the United
States,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2003, vol. 84, pp. 901-909.
57 For example, one report showed that 42% of the area studied in the American West was affected by drought during
the years 900 to 1300, versus 30% between 1900 and 2003, a 29% reduction in the average area affected by drought
between the two periods. See Cook et al., 2007.
58 For more information, see http://www.adeca.alabama.gov/Office%20of%20Water%20Resources/
Document%20Library/20080321%20-%20DroughtAdvisoryMap_Final.pdf.
59 Alabama Drought Management Plan, p. 7.
60 Ibid., p. 8.
61 For more information, see http://drought.unl.edu/Planning/PlanningInfobyState.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
13
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Federal Aid
If the effects of a drought overwhelm state or local resources, the President, at the request of the
state governor, is authorized under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) to issue major
disaster or emergency declarations resulting in federal aid to affected parties.62 On October 20,
2007, the governor of Georgia requested a presidential drought disaster declaration because of
prolonged exceptional drought conditions in the northern third of the state.63 However, no such
presidential declaration occurred in response to the request from Georgia. The last presidential
drought or water shortage disaster declaration in the continental United States was for New Jersey
in 1980. More recent drought declarations have been issued for U.S. territories in the Pacific. The
infrequency of presidential domestic drought declarations increases the uncertainty about the
circumstances under which such a declaration is likely to be made.
More frequently, a state governor requests drought disaster assistance through the U.S. Secretary
of Agriculture, who can declare an agricultural disaster as a result of drought and make available
low-interest loans for qualified farmers and ranchers and other emergency assistance. For
example, on January 4, 2012, USDA designated 40 counties in Texas as primary natural disaster
areas due to losses caused by drought, excessive heat, high winds, and wildfires.64 By summer
2012, drought has spread across nearly two-thirds of the United States and has adversely affected
agricultural producers. As of mid-July 2012, more than 1,000 counties have been designated as
disaster counties by the Secretary. For more on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
emergency assistance, see the box titled “USDA Emergency Assistance: Status and Legislation.”
Although agricultural losses typically dominate drought impacts, congressional interest in federal
drought assistance is not limited to the USDA. For example, the 2012 drought has raised interest
in whether and to what extent other federal agencies have and are using authorities to assist with
managing drought. For example, in addition to operations of federal water resource facilities
(discussed below), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation also
have limited drought emergency authorities and funding; the drought response and recovery
authorities for the Corps, Reclamation, and the Farm Service Agency are provided in Appendix
A. While the Corps and Reclamation authorities have experienced some use, the frequency,
impact, and coordination of their use with other federal and state drought efforts have not been
monitored and assessed. Most of the Corps drought response and recovery authorities are limited
to providing limited and temporary water from its reservoirs for a fee. The exception is its
authority to assist with well construction and transport of water to drought-distressed farmers,
ranchers, and political subdivisions; the construction costs are a nonfederal responsibility, while
the transport costs can be federally funded. Congress has provided Reclamation with a broader set
of authorities that allow it to assist with drought response and recovery; these authorities,
however, are limited to the 17 western states65 and Hawaii.
62 For more information about the Stafford Act, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy; and CRS Report R41981,
Congressional Primer on Major Disasters and Emergencies, by Francis X. McCarthy and Jared T. Brown.
63 See http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema.
64 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency News Release, January 4, 2012, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/
FSA/newsReleases?area=newsroom&subject=landing&topic=edn&newstype=ednewsrel&type=detail&item=
ed_20120104_rel_0003.html. However, in early July, 2012, Texas experienced significant rainfall.
65 Per the Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended, the 17 Western states often referred to as “Reclamation States”
include the following: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
USDA Emergency Assistance: Status and Legislation
Under current U.S. farm policy, financial losses caused by drought and other natural disasters are mitigated primarily
through the federal crop insurance program (administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency). From 2000 to 2011,
the federal contribution to the crop insurance program averaged about $4.6 billion per year, mostly in the form of a
premium subsidy and reimbursements to private insurance companies. Since the severe drought of 1988 and until
passage of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), Congress regularly made supplemental financial assistance available to
farmers and ranchers, primarily in the form of crop disaster payments and emergency livestock assistance. Crop
disaster payments, paid to any producer who experienced a major crop loss caused by a natural disaster, totaled
$22.34 billion from FY1989 to FY2009.
More recently, under the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), Congress authorized a $3.8 billion trust fund to cover the
cost of making agricultural disaster assistance for losses from droughts and other causes available on an ongoing basis
over four years (FY2008-FY2011). Among the programs operating from FY2008 through September 30, 2011, the
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) assisted ranchers who graze livestock on drought-affected pastureland or
grazing land. As of early May 2012, payments under LFP totaled more than $500 million for losses through September
2011. The expired status of some of these disaster payment programs is receiving congressional attention given the
current drought.
The 112th Congress is currently considering omnibus farm legislation, including extension of certain agricultural
disaster programs that expired in September 2011. The Senate passed its version of the 2012 omnibus farm bill (S.
3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012) in June 2012. The Senate bill retroactively extends the
livestock disaster and tree assistance programs, thereby potential y covering losses associated with the drought
currently affecting a large portion of the country. These losses are generally not covered by crop insurance or other
assistance. In the House, on July 11, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee passed its version of the farm bill (H.R.
6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012), and floor action is pending. Separately, on
July 27, 2012, the House Agriculture Committee released legislation to extend several disaster programs as part of a
one-year extension of the farm bill.
In response to the 2012 drought, USDA also has reduced the interest rate for emergency loans from 3.75% to 2.25%.
Also, USDA is authorizing emergency haying and grazing use of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres for 2012
due to drought conditions. USDA announced a smal er reduction (10% instead of 25%) on rental payments made to
producers on CRP lands used for emergency haying and grazing in 2012.
For more information on the 2012 omnibus farm legislation, see CRS Report R42552, The 2012 Farm Bill: A
Comparison of Senate-Passed S. 3240 and the House Agriculture Committee’s H.R. 6083 with Current Law, coordinated by
Ralph M. Chite. For analysis of disaster and emergency assistance, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster
Assistance, by Dennis A. Shields, and CRS Report RL31095, Emergency Funding for Agriculture: A Brief History of
Supplemental Appropriations, FY1989-FY2012, by Ralph M. Chite. For more on crop insurance, see CRS Report
RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Ralph M. Chite and Dennis A. Shields.
Federal Facilities and Drought
Operations of federal water resource facilities, particularly reservoirs behind dams, can both assist
in meeting water supply needs during droughts and be vulnerable to droughts. Federal dams,
particularly in the West, were constructed in part to provide multi-year storage to help with
variations in seasonal and annual precipitation.66 Sustained hydrological drought nonetheless
affects operations of federally managed reservoirs, dams, locks, hydroelectric facilities, and other
(...continued)
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
66 Reclamation is a central player in water resource management in the West. A devastating drought at the end of the
19th century probably was a factor leading to the 1902 Reclamation Act that launched the federal reclamation effort and
Reclamation itself. See Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert (New York: Penguin, 1986), pp. 108-109. Other research
suggests that failures of some late 19th century private irrigation projects, undertaken following passage of the Carey
Act (see footnote 55), may have occurred in part due to drought conditions.
Congressional Research Service
15
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
components of the nation’s water infrastructure. For example, numerous Corps reservoirs have
drought management plans that result in the curtailing of some benefits (e.g., navigation,
hydropower) in order to maintain other benefits (e.g., in-stream flows to support water quality,
aquatic species, and river withdrawals for electric power cooling and municipal and industrial
water supplies). The Corps’ operations of its facilities in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River system during 2007-2008 illustrate management tradeoffs during drought (see box on
“Federal Reservoir Operations During Southeast Droughts”).
Federal Reservoir Operations During Southeast Droughts
An example of hydrological drought was the 2007-2008 drought in the southeastern United States. A severe drought
in the region, beginning with below-average rainfall in spring 2006, exacerbated an ongoing interstate dispute involving
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over water sharing in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) river system. During
the drought, Atlanta’s municipal and industrial water users in the upper basin were concerned over the potential loss
of their principal water supply, Lake Lanier, a surface water reservoir behind a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
operated dam. Their concern resulted from the decision by the Corps to draw down Lake Lanier in the fall of 2007.
The Corps drew down the reservoir to maintain minimum flows in the lower basin Apalachicola River to support
species protection, energy production (e.g., power plant cooling), and lower basin municipal withdrawals.
The ACF tri-state conflict continues into 2012, and drought conditions have returned to the basin. As of June 2012,
the Southeast was experiencing widespread drought, with extreme and exceptional drought in southern Georgia and
the northern Florida peninsula. (See Figure 2.) Streamflows in the basin in the spring of 2012 were in the lowest
quintile on record. Consequently, total inflows into the Corps’ ACF reservoirs were below 50% of normal from
January to May 2012. As a result, reservoir storage levels are below normal. In May 2012 the Corps shifted its ACF
operations to provide only minimum flows to meet water supply, water quality, and environmental needs, thus
attempting to store more in its reservoirs. This operation level does not support navigation and only minimal
hydropower demands.
During and following the 2007-2008 drought, additional actions at the state level to manage water demand during
droughts were used and considered. To what extent similar activities will be implemented or necessary again revives
the policy questions of what actions should be taken by whom and when in a shared basin in order to adapt to the
dry conditions.
For more on the ACF 2007-2008 drought and tri-state conflict, see CRS Report RL34326, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-
Flint (ACF) Drought: Federal Water Management Issues, coordinated by Nicole T. Carter; and CRS Report RL34440,
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Drought: Species and Ecosystem Management, by M. Lynne Corn, Kristina Alexander, and
Eugene H. Buck.
Source: NOAA, National Weather Service, Southeast River Forecast Center, When Did the Drought Begin, a Focus on
the North Georgia and Atlanta Areas, November 16, 2007; National Integrated Drought Information System, Southeast
US Pilot for Apalachicola-Flint-Chattahoochee River Basin, June 5, 2012; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Average Daily Inflow
to Lakes by Month, Mobile, AL, June 12, 2012, http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/loclsumm.htm.
Similarly, drought conditions in California from 2007 to 2009, coupled with declining fish
species, resulted in operational changes to Reclamation facilities, including significantly reduced
water deliveries to Central Valley Project contractors, as well as to California’s State Water
Project (SWP) contractors. Reclamation, whose facilities currently serve over 31 million people
in the West and deliver a total of nearly 30 million acre-feet of water67 annually, faces operational
challenges because of conflicts among its water users during drought in states it serves.
Severe drought conditions in 2001 in the Klamath River basin, on the Oregon-California border,
exacerbated competition for scarce water resources among farmers, Indian tribes, commercial and
67 One acre-foot is enough water to cover one acre of land one foot deep. An acre-foot is equivalent to 325,851 gallons.
Congressional Research Service
16
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
sport fishermen, other recreationists, federal wildlife refuge managers, environmental groups, and
state, local, and tribal governments. Reclamation’s decision in April 2001 to withhold water from
farmers for in-stream flows for three fish species listed as endangered or threatened under the
Endangered Species Act sparked congressional debate that continues today. The Klamath basin
again experienced drought conditions in 2010 and again is experiencing a lower than average
water year for 2012. Project water flows to Klamath refuges were halted from December 2011
through March 2012. Dry conditions contributed to a cholera outbreak among migrating birds
during this time, resulting in the death of thousands of birds that visit the refuges. However, early
spring precipitation improved hydrological conditions such that Reclamation projects full
irrigation deliveries for 2012.68
The droughts in California, the Southeast, and the Klamath River basin underscore an underlying
difficulty of managing federal reservoirs to meet multipurpose water needs. In the future, the
United States might face severe and sustained periods of drought not experienced in the 20th
century. If so, disputes over federal infrastructure management like those in California, the ACF
basin, and Klamath River basin may increasingly determine short-term actions by Reclamation
and the Corps, and result in long-term consequences for congressional oversight and funding.
Drought Forecasts for the United States
Predicting the severity and duration of severe drought over a specific region of the country is not
yet possible more than a few months in advance because of the many factors that influence
drought. Nevertheless, some modeling studies suggest that a transition to a more arid average
climate in the American West, perhaps similar to conditions in precolonial North America, may
be underway.69 Some studies have suggested that human influences on climate, caused by
emissions of greenhouse gases, may be responsible for a drying trend.70 Whether future
greenhouse gas-driven warming can be linked to La Niña-like conditions, or other phenomena
related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, is unclear.
A likely consequence of higher temperatures in the West would be higher evapotranspiration,
reduced precipitation, and decreased spring runoff.71 These impacts would result from an
“acceleration” of the hydrologic cycle, due to increased warming of the atmosphere, which in turn
increases the amount of water held in the atmosphere.72 A possible consequence is more frequent,
and perhaps more severe, droughts and floods. However, these changes are likely not to occur
evenly across the United States. Observations of water-related changes over the last century
suggest that runoff and streamflow in the Colorado and Columbia River basins has been
68 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Klamath Project 2012 Operations Plan, April 6, 2012, p. 5, http://www.usbr.gov/mp/
kbao/docs/summer_operations.pdf.
69 Richard Seager et al., “Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North
America,” Science, vol. 316 (May 25, 2007), pp. 1181-1184.
70 Tim P. Barnett, et al., “Human-induced changes in the hydrology of the western United States,” Science, vol. 319
(February 22, 2008), pp. 1080-1082.
71 Research results are emerging, however, that suggest that local and regional patterns of precipitation may be variable,
and parts of a region or a state could receive higher precipitation than the current average, even if the overall trend over
the broader area is towards less precipitation. See K. T. Redmond, “Climate Change in the Western United States:
Projections and Observations,” Eos Trans. AGU, 90(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract U11D-02, 2009.
72 National Research Council, Committee on Hydrologic Science, Global Change and Extreme Hydrology: Testing
Conventional Wisdom, Washington, D.C., 2011, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
17
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
decreasing, along with the amount of ice in mountain glaciers in the West, and the amount of
annual precipitation in the Southwest.73 Yet the understanding of hydrologic extremes, such as
drought, is confounded by other effects such as land cover changes, the operation of dams,
irrigation works, extraction of groundwater, and other engineered changes. Forecasting drought
conditions at the regional scale, for example for river basins or smaller, is difficult because
current climate models are less robust and have higher uncertainty at smaller scales.74 (For
example, see box below on the Colorado River’s Lake Mead.)
Even though forecasting drought at the regional scale is difficult, understanding potential changes
in long-term trends is important for water managers at all levels—federal, state, local, and tribal.
Water project operations and state water allocations are typically based on past long-term
hydrological trends; significant deviations from such trends may result in difficult challenges for
water managers and water users alike.75 An example of such a dilemma can be observed in the
Colorado River basin.
Colorado River’s Lake Mead
A 2008 study asserted that water storage in Lake Mead has a 50% probability by 2021 to “run dry” and a 10% chance
by 2014 to drop below levels needed to provide hydroelectric power under current climate conditions and without
changes to water allocation in the basin. This study raised awareness of the vulnerability of western water systems
but drew criticism that global climate models are insufficient to forecast climate change effects at the regional scale.
Some western water officials were especially critical of the report’s assertions. One explained that Reclamation and
other agencies had recently developed new criteria for the allocation of Colorado River water in times of shortages
(shortage criteria), including drought, and commented that the likelihood that Lake Mead would run dry was
“absurd.” The study was based on predictions of future warming in the West without increased precipitation.
In a 2009 follow-up study, the same authors acknowledged that the ability of the Colorado River system to mitigate
drought could be managed if the users found a way to reduce average deliveries, thereby maintaining water levels in
Lake Mead and Lake Powell at consistently higher elevations. Maintaining higher water levels would increase the
capacity of the Colorado River system to buffer itself against low precipitation years. Even so, the authors noted,
global climate models are in broad agreement that the southwestern United States is likely to become warmer and
more arid, especially in the Colorado River drainage basin. In addition, paleoclimate studies suggest that the 20th
century was the wettest or second-wettest century for at least 500 years and possibly over the past 1,200 years.
Notwithstanding climate change, the paleoclimate data suggest that average future precipitation in the Colorado River
basin is unlikely to match what hydrologists believe were relatively wet 20th-century levels.
Sources: Tim P. Barnett and David W. Pierce, “When Will Lake Mead Go Dry?” Water Resources Research, vol. 44
(March 29, 2008), p. W03201, DOI:10.1029/2007WR006704; Felicity Barringer, “Lake Mead could be within a few
years of going dry, study finds,” New York Times (February 13, 2008); Jenny Dennis, “Stunned Scientists: ‘When Will
Lake Mead Go Dry?’” Rim Country Gazette (February 28, 2008), quoting Larry Dozier, Central Arizona Project deputy
general manager; Timothy P. Barnett and David W. Pierce, “Sustainable Water Deliveries from the Colorado River in
a Changing Climate,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 106, no. 18 (May 6, 2009).
Conditions in the Colorado River basin over the last decade, including recent low reservoir levels
in Lake Mead and low flows in the Upper Basin, raise the issue of what is the baseline for
average hydrologic cycles now and in the future. The allocation of Colorado River water supplies
was agreed upon by lower and upper basin states in the early part of the 20th century based on
hydrologic data from what scientists now know was a relatively wet period in the history of the
73 Ibid., p. 7.
74 Ibid., p. 9.
75 P.C.D. Milly et al., “Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management?,” Science, vol. 319 (February 4, 2008), p.
574.
Congressional Research Service
18
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Colorado River basin.76 If long-term reduced runoff predictions for the basin are borne out (see
box above on Colorado River’s Lake Mead), then water allocation policies for regions like the
Colorado River basin may need to be revisited.77 In the meantime, Colorado River basin states
have negotiated “shortage criteria” and “interim guidelines” for managing Colorado River water
supplies during times of shortages.78
Policy Challenges
Severe drought can cause significant economic harm, affect nearly all areas of the country, and
exacerbate water competition. Nonetheless, several key factors make comprehensive drought
policy at the national level a challenge, including:
• the gradual, or “creeping,” nature of drought;
• split federal and non-federal drought response and management responsibilities;
• a patchwork of federal programs and oversight with little coordination; and
• differences in regional conditions and drought risk in terms of the drought
hazard, vulnerability, and potential consequences.
Drought conditions often develop slowly, are not easily identified initially, and are challenging to
forecast beyond 30 to 90 days. Consequently, drought declarations are made well after onset—
typically once impacts are felt. This situation makes it difficult to mitigate or prevent drought
impacts. Further, even though drought generally is continuously occurring somewhere in the
United States, the unpredictability of its location, duration, and severity complicates preparation
for implementation of responses.
When severe meteorological drought affects a region, the supply of available water often shrinks
before use is reduced. Adjusting down the use of water as drought persists and supplies shrink can
be difficult. Actually, droughts can increase demand on water supplies (e.g., lower soil moisture
results in increased demand for irrigation and landscape watering). The flexibility of existing
water access and use arrangements limit the scope and speed of some drought responses. Federal,
state, and local authorities make water resource decisions within the context of multiple and often
conflicting laws and objectives, competing legal decisions, and entrenched institutional
mechanisms, including century-old water rights and long-standing contractual obligations (i.e.,
long-term water delivery and power contracts). Typically, how access to and competition for
water is managed (e.g., permitting of water withdrawals) and how reductions in water supply are
76 The Colorado River basin is somewhat unusual in that the Secretary of the Interior acts as water “master” for the
river, and apportionment of water supplies among the basin states is done in accordance with the Colorado River
Compact and a body of law known as the “Law of the River.” For more information on the Law of the River, see
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html.
77 Tim P. Barnett and David W. Pierce, “When Will Lake Mead Go Dry?” Water Resources Research, vol. 44 (March
29, 2008), p. W03201, DOI:10.1029/2007WR006704. Reservoir storage in the Colorado River basin has increased by
more than 8 million acre-feet since 2005. As of April 3, 2012, reservoir storage in the basin was nearly 63% of
capacity. Hydropower production has continued under 2007 “interim guidelines” for managing water shortages in the
Lower Colorado River basin.
78 For more information on 2012 operations, see http://www.usbr.gov/uc/water/crsp/studies/24Month_03.pdf, accessed
May 2, 2012. CRS has not determined to what degree recent scenarios are similar to those considered in studies
supporting the new shortage criteria for Colorado River water allocations under the Colorado River Compact.
Congressional Research Service
19
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
managed (e.g., shared reductions under a riparian system of water rights versus reductions based
on the priority in time of a water right) is determined by state law and at times through interstate
compacts. Additionally, state and local laws can determine how easily water can be transferred
among users. These access, reduction, and transfer arrangements can significantly affect the
behavior, incentives, and opportunities available to water users during droughts. Fundamental
changes to the access, reduction, and transfer arrangements are largely outside of the realm of
federal action, and are largely determined by each state.
A mismatch between supply and demand during droughts underscores the responsibility of
stakeholders to anticipate the influence of drought and plan and act accordingly. The federal
government has several drought monitoring and response programs. While drought planning and
mitigation responsibilities lie largely at the state and local level, the federal government also
provides some drought planning assistance. Much of this assistance historically has been
concentrated on the West. Additionally, the federal government often provides emergency funding
for drought relief that is primarily aimed at easing the economic impacts. The National Drought
Commission and others have noted, however, that federal relief programs and emergency funding
provide little incentive for state and local planning and efforts to reduce social and economic
vulnerability to drought. A policy issue particularly relevant to state and local decision makers is
the role and types of demand management tools to employ during a drought (e.g., lawn watering
restrictions, incentives to curtail irrigation during droughts, scarcity pricing). How a state
distributes and administers its waters among competing uses can affect what drought response
tools are available to it and to water users.
A further challenge is lack of a cohesive national drought policy at the federal level, and lack of a
lead agency coordinating federal programs. Rather, several federal programs have been developed
over the years, often in response to specific droughts. Additionally, occasional widespread
economic effects have prompted creation of several federal relief programs. These programs are
overseen by different congressional committees. Whether this fragmentation results in
duplication, waste, and gaps, or whether it reflects the complexity of preparing and responding to
drought and the different responses needed by a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., irrigated
agriculture, dry land farming, municipal water utilities) is part of the debate about how to proceed
with cost-effective management of the nation’s drought risk and who bears the consequences of
drought. (See box below for an example of how water access and transfer arrangements played a
significant role in shaping Australia’s drought resilience and adaptation.)
The 2012 drought, like other recent severe weather events, has contributed to the ongoing public
and policy discussion about the influence of human actions on climate and the future of U.S.
actions on climate change mitigation. For a discussion of climate change science and policy, see
CRS Report RL34266, Climate Change: Science Highlights, by Jane A. Leggett; and CRS Report
R41973, Climate Change: Conceptual Approaches and Policy Tools, by Jane A. Leggett,
respectively.
Congressional Research Service
20
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Australia’s Drought Experience: Water Markets as Drought Management
Australia experienced a historic drought from 1997 to 2009, known as the Millennium Drought. The drought tested a
preexisting multi-pronged national water reform initiative; one aspect of the reform was the development of water
markets. To develop water markets, the initiative had promoted reform of state law to clarify the property right
associated with a water right and facilitated the means to buy and sell perpetual water rights and short-term
allocations in basins that were ful y allocated. Water trade increased significantly during the later years of the drought
as allocations fell and markets matured. Allocations in some sub-basins during the worst of the drought reached as
low as 20% of a full allocation. While gross domestic production dropped by $2 billion-$3 billion in Australia’s most
significant agricultural basin during each of the worst drought years, the ability to trade water is estimated to have
reduced losses by roughly $1 billion during each drought year. The market’s ability to move scarce water to uses with
higher economic value is credited with assisting Australia’s rural economy to ride out the drought as well as it did by
getting more value per unit of water used. For example, some dairy farmers sold their water rights and purchased
fodder, rather than growing it themselves. Agricultural businesses increasingly used buying and selling in the water
market as a coping mechanism as the drought persisted. With water availability high in many basins since 2009,
market water prices have fal en, and rice and cotton production, which had declined during the drought, have picked
back up.
Water markets were not established in Australia without controversy and criticism. While not solely responsible,
water rights trading contributed to trends producing significant economic adjustment, particularly in rural agricultural
communities. Nonetheless, contemplating the consequences for Australia, especial y its agricultural communities and
businesses, of such a severe drought under a less flexible water rights regime has increased internal support for the
use and further improvement of water markets.
The broader water reform initiative produced some disappointments, as well as successes. The broader reform is
criticized for falling short of achieving ecologically sustainable levels of surface water withdrawals. Consequently, the
recent discourse about the next steps in Australian water policy has focused on how to establish sustainable levels of
withdrawals that can maintain ecosystems and support regional economies and how to cost-effectively secure the
water for the environment. Australia’s government uses the water markets to transition water out of existing uses
for use in meeting environmental flow goals; to date, the Australian government’s purchase of water rights for the
environment using the market has been less expensive than obtaining the water through infrastructure efficiency
improvements.
Source: National Water Commission (Australia), The Impacts of Water Trading in the Southern Murray-Darling Basin
Between 2006-07 and 2010-11, April 2012.
Legislative Action
Congress has long recognized the lack of coordinated drought planning and mitigation activities
among federal agencies and the predominance of a crisis management approach to dealing with
drought. Over the last 15 years, legislative action has focused on the question of whether there is
a need for a national drought policy. For example, in 1998, Congress passed the National Drought
Policy Act (P.L. 105-199), which created the National Drought Policy Commission. In 2000, the
Commission submitted to Congress a comprehensive report that included policy
recommendations. Congress has considered recommendations from the Commission’s 2000
report; however, to date, it has enacted only one part of the recommendations (the National
Integrated Drought Information System, discussed below). Congress also considered, but did not
enact, legislation creating a National Drought Council during deliberations on the 2008 farm bill.
Both the Commission findings and the proposed Council are discussed below.
The National Drought Policy Act of 1998
In passing the National Drought Policy Act of 1998, Congress found that “at the Federal level,
even though historically there have been frequent, significant droughts of national consequences,
Congressional Research Service
21
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
drought is addressed mainly through special legislation and ad hoc action rather than through a
systematic and permanent process as occurs with other natural disasters.”79 Further, Congress
found an increasing need at the federal level to emphasize preparedness, mitigation, and risk
management. Those findings are consistent with a recognition of the inevitability, albeit
unpredictability, of severe drought occurring. The act created the National Drought Policy
Commission, and required it to conduct a study and report to Congress on:
• what is needed to respond to drought emergencies;
• what federal laws and programs address drought;
• what are the pertinent state, tribal, and local laws; and
• how various needs, laws, and programs can be better integrated while
recognizing the primacy of states to control water through state law.
In May 2000, the Commission submitted its report.80 The Commission concluded that the United
States needed to embrace a national drought policy with preparedness at its core. It recommended
that Congress enact a National Drought Preparedness Act, which would establish a federal-
nonfederal partnership through a National Drought Council. The Council would function to
further national drought policy goals. The Commission’s report provided 29 specific
recommendations to achieve the goals of national drought policy. Most of the specific
recommendations were targeted at the President and federal agencies, coupled with calls for
Congress to fund drought-related activities in support of the recommendations. (Appendix B of
this report lists the five goals and illustrative recommendations from the Commission’s report.)
As background for its recommendations, the Commission noted the patchwork nature of drought
programs, and that despite a major federal role in responding to drought, no single federal agency
leads or coordinates drought programs—instead, the federal role is more of “crisis
management.”81
National Drought Preparedness Legislation and the 2008 Farm Bill
National Drought Preparedness Act bills were introduced in 2002 (107th Congress), 2003 (108th
Congress), and 2005 (109th Congress), but were not enacted. Similar stand-alone legislation was
introduced in the 110th Congress; however, the House-passed version of H.R. 2419, the Farm,
Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2008 (also known as the 2008 farm bill), contained a section
creating a National Drought Council. This section of the 2008 farm bill would have charged the
council with creating a national drought policy action plan, which would have incorporated many
of the components recommended in the Commission’s report; however, it was not included in the
conference agreement. Although the Senate version of H.R. 2419 did not contain a similar
section, the Senate bill authorized permanent disaster payments in hopes of precluding the need
for ad hoc disaster payments. The conference agreement on the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246,
enacted June 18, 2008) included a new $3.8 billion trust fund to cover the cost of making
agricultural disaster assistance available on an ongoing basis over the following four years. The
assistance was available for disasters occurring on or before September 30, 2011, and has since
79 The National Drought Policy Act of 1998, P.L. 105-199 (42 U.S.C. 5121 note).
80 Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/finalreport/fullreport/ndpcfullreportcovers/
ndpcreportcontents.htm.
81 Ibid., p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
22
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
expired. The Senate Agriculture Committee version of the 2012 farm bill would authorize four of
the five disaster programs that received funding under the authority of the 2008 farm bill.82
National Integrated Drought Information System
Although Congress has not enacted comprehensive national drought preparedness legislation, it
acted on the second of five commission goals by passing the National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS) Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-430). That goal called for enhanced
observation networks, monitoring, prediction, and information delivery of drought information.
P.L. 109-430 established NIDIS within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) to improve drought monitoring and forecasting abilities.83
Conclusion
Drought is a natural hazard with potentially significant economic, social, and ecological
consequences. History suggests that severe and extended droughts are inevitable and part of
natural climate cycles. Drought has for centuries shaped the societies of North America and will
continue to do so into the future. Current understanding is that the physical conditions causing
drought in the United States are linked to sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
For example, the 2011 severe drought in Texas is thought to be linked to La Niña conditions in
the Pacific Ocean. Increasingly, studies are projecting the long-term role that droughts may play
in regional climate patterns. Nonetheless, available technology and science remains limited to
forecasting specific drought beyond a few months in advance for a region. The prospect of
extended droughts and more arid baseline conditions in parts of the United States represents a
challenge to existing public policy responses for preparing and responding to drought, and to
federal water resource projects in particular, because their construction was based largely on 19th-
and 20th-century hydrologic conditions.
Over time, Congress has created various drought programs, often in response to specific droughts
and authored by different committees. Crafting a broad drought policy that might encompass the
jurisdiction of many different congressional committees is often difficult. Additionally, although
many water allocation and other water management responsibilities largely lie at the state or local
level, localities and individuals often look to the federal government for relief when disasters
occur. This is similar to the situation for flood policy, and water policy in general, at the national
level. The National Drought Policy Commission recognized these patterns, and they underlie
many of its recommendations to Congress.84 The currently fragmented approach can be costly to
national taxpayers; however, it is not certain that increased federal investment (especially
vis-à-vis the potential for tailored local and state investment) in drought preparation, mitigation,
and improved coordination would produce more economically efficient outcomes.
The overall costs to the federal government and the nation as a result of extreme drought, apart
from relief to the agricultural sector, are difficult to assess in part because of the broad nature of
drought’s impacts. Drought can result in water restrictions affecting municipal and industrial
82 CRS Report R42040, Farm Safety Net Proposals in the 112th Congress, by Dennis A. Shields and Randy Schnepf.
83 NOAA allocated $12.1 million for NIDIS in FY2012. For more NIDIS information, see http://www.drought.gov.
84 Infra, note 52.
Congressional Research Service
23
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
users, decreased hydropower generation and power plant cooling efficiency, navigation
limitations and disruptions, harm to drought-sensitive species (benefits to other species), and
increased fire risk, among other effects.
Congress may opt to revisit the Commission’s recommendations and reevaluate whether current
federal practices could be supplemented with actions to coordinate, prepare for, and respond to
the unpredictable but inevitable occurrence of drought. Given the daunting task of managing
drought, Congress also may consider proposals to manage drought impacts, such as assisting
localities, industries, and agriculture with developing or augmenting water supplies. Congress
also may move to examine how the two major federal water management agencies, the Corps and
Reclamation, plan for and respond to severe drought and account for its impacts.
Congressional Research Service
24
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Drought-Related Federal Response
and Recovery Authorities
Table A-1. Drought-Related Federal Response and Recovery Authorities
Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Farm Service Agency
(not including USDA crop insurance programs)
Agency
Program Name and Brief Description
Primary Authorities
Army Corps of
Temporary water withdrawal, for a fee, from Corps
Flood Control Act of 1944,
Engineers
facilities during drought for municipal and industrial
as amended (33 U.S.C. 708)
purposes. Administration policy limits application to
governor-declared drought emergencies and to 99
acre-feet.
Army Corps of
Construction of wells for and transport of water to
Disaster Relief Act of 1974
Engineers
drought-distressed farmers, ranchers, and political
(33 U.S.C. 701n)
subdivisions. Non-transport costs are nonfederal.
Army Corps of
Contracts for temporary sale of surplus water for
Flood Control Act of 1944
Engineers
municipal and industrial use from Corps reservoirs at a
(33 U.S.C. 708)
fee determined by the Secretary of the Army.
Army Corps of
Interim use for irrigation of un-contracted water
Water Resources
Engineers
designated for municipal and industrial use at Corps
Development Act of 1986
reservoirs for a fee.
(43 U.S.C. 390)
Bureau of Reclamation
Temporary construction, management, and
Reclamation States
(17 Western States and
conservation activities (well construction can be
Emergency Drought Relief
Hawaii)
permanent but must be designed to address drought
Act of 1991, as amended
impacts). Costs incurred by Reclamation performing or
(43 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.)a
contracting for the work are federal (nonreimbursable);
other costs are to be repaid to the federal government
(reimbursable).
Bureau of Reclamation
Loans with interest to water users (that demonstrate
Reclamation States
(17 Western States and
an ability to pay within the terms of the loan) for
Emergency Drought Relief
Hawaii)
construction of temporary facilities and permanent
Act of 1991, as amended
wells, conservation activities, and acquisition of water
(43 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.)a
to mitigate droughts.
Bureau of Reclamation
Authorizes Reclamation to facilitate water purchases
Reclamation States
(17 Western States and
and transfers through nonfinancial assistance, and to
Emergency Drought Relief
Hawaii)
provide financial assistance for contingency plans. Cost
Act of 1991, as amended
for purchasing, storing, and conveying water are
(43 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.)a
general y nonfederal (reimbursable).
Bureau of Reclamation
Authorizes Reclamation purchases of water from its
Reclamation States
(17 Western States and
project contractors and sold under temporary
Emergency Drought Relief
Hawaii)
contracts at ful cost recovery.
Act of 1991, as amended
(43 U.S.C. 2201, et seq.)a
Authorizes Reclamation’s participation in state water
banks.
Bureau of Reclamation
Temporary procurement (not to exceed two years) of
Reclamation States
(17 Western States and
Reclamation project and non-project water for
Emergency Drought Relief
Hawaii)
managing fish and wildlife impacts due to drought or
Act of 1991, as amended
the operation of a Reclamation project during drought
(43 U.S.C. 2212)
conditions. Price charged for water is to recover the
federal costs of the Reclamation facilities.
Congressional Research Service
25
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Agency
Program Name and Brief Description
Primary Authorities
Bureau of Reclamation
Emergency fund established to assure continuous
Act of June 26, 1948, as
operation of Reclamation facilities. Also, other site or
amended (43 U.S.C. 502)
drought specific authority.
P.L. 95-18, as amended (43
U.S.C. 502 note)
Farm Service Agency
Noninsured Assistance Payments (NAP)- provides direct
7 U,S,C, 1501 et seq. and 7
payments to crop producers who experience a
U.S.C. 1509
significant crop loss, but are not eligible for federal crop
insurance.
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Loans- low-interest government loans to
7 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.
producers suffering from production and physical
losses located in or adjacent to a county that has been
declared a disaster by the President or USDA
Secretary.
Farm Service Agency
Livestock Forage Program- provides financial assistance to 7 U.S.C. 1531
producers who suffered grazing losses due to drought
or fire on or after January 1, 2008, and before October
1, 2011.
Farm Service Agency
Tree Assistance Program (TAP) provides financial
7 U.S.C. 1531
assistance to qualifying nursery tree growers and
orchardists to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees,
bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters,
including floods, occurring on or after January 1, 2008,
and before October 1, 2011.
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)- Provides
16 U.S.C. 2201-2205
emergency funding and technical assistance to
producers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural
disasters, including implementing emergency water
conservation measures in response to severe droughts.
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) provides
16 U.S.C. 2206
payments to eligible owners of nonindustrial private
forest (NIPF) land in order to carry out emergency
measures to restore land damaged by a natural disaster,
including drought.
Source: CRS
Notes: For a discussion of USDA crop insurance programs see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance:
Background and Issues, by Dennis A. Shields.
a. For the draft agency policy on implementation, see Bureau of Reclamation, Draft Reclamation Manual:
Directives and Standards, Title I, Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended,
2002, http://www.usbr.gov/drought/title1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Excerpts from the 2000 National
Drought Policy Commission Report to Congress
In 2000, the National Drought Policy Commission published its report to Congress, Preparing for
Drought in the 21st Century—A Report of the National Drought Policy Commission.85 The
Commission concluded that the United States needed to embrace a national drought policy with
preparedness at its core. It recommended that Congress enact a National Drought Preparedness
Act, which would establish a federal-nonfederal partnership through a National Drought Council.
The council would function to further national drought policy goals. The council’s recommended
duties included promoting cooperation and effective delivery of drought programs, evaluation of
regional needs and opportunities, and assessments of drought-related assistance and initiatives,
and post-drought impact assessments.
The Commission also recommended five broad national policy goals and a number of
recommendations for furthering each of the goals. Below are the five goals and below those are
some examples of the types of recommendations accompanying each of the goals; many more
recommendations are proposed in the Commission’s report. To date, Congress has enacted
legislation furthering Goal 2 on improved observation. Congress also has taken action on
insurance and financial strategies; their effect on improving drought preparedness (i.e., reducing
drought vulnerability) versus increasing the relief for the impacts of drought has not been
evaluated. This type of assessment potentially would fall under the duties of a National Drought
council as recommended by the Commission.
Policy Statement86
• Favor preparedness over insurance, insurance over relief, and incentives over
regulation.
• Set research priorities based on the potential of the research results to reduce
drought impacts.
• Coordinate the delivery of federal services through cooperation and collaboration
with nonfederal entities.
Goals87
Goal 1. Incorporate planning, implementation of plans and proactive mitigation measures, risk
management, resource stewardship, environmental considerations, and public education as the
key elements of effective national drought policy.
Goal 2. Improve 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.
85 Available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/finalreport/fullreport/ndpcfullreportcovers/
ndpcreportcontents.htm.
86 Ibid., p. i.
87 Ibid., p. vi.
Congressional Research Service
27
Drought in the United States: Causes and Issues for Congress
Goal 3. Develop and incorporate comprehensive insurance and financial strategies into drought
preparedness plans.
Goal 4. Maintain a safety net of emergency relief that emphasizes sound stewardship of natural
resources and self-help.
Goal 5. Coordinate drought programs and response effectively, efficiently, and in a customer-
oriented manner.
Illustrative Recommendations for Goal 1: Planning and Mitigation88
• Congress should adequately fund existing drought preparedness programs.
• President should direct appropriate federal agencies to effectively meet the
drought planning needs of those areas not traditionally served (e.g., eastern
United States).
• The President should direct all appropriate federal agencies to study their
programs for potential impacts on drought.
• The president should direct all appropriate federal agencies to develop and
implement drought management plans for federal facilities (e.g., military bases,
federal office complexes, federal prisons).
Author Contact Information
Peter Folger
Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
pfolger@crs.loc.gov, 7-1517
ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
Betsy A. Cody
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
bcody@crs.loc.gov, 7-7229
88 Ibid., p. 36.
Congressional Research Service
28