Statement of
Charles V. Stern
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Before
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. Senate
Hearing on
“Short- and Long-Term Solutions to Extreme
Drought in the Western United States”
June 14, 2022
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
TE10076
Congressional Research Service
1
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the committee, thank you for inviting
the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to provide testimony on short and long-term solutions to
extreme drought in the western United States. My name is Charles Stern. I am a Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy at CRS.
In serving Congress on a nonpartisan and objective basis, CRS takes no position on legislation and makes
no recommendations. CRS remains available to assist the committee in its development and consideration
of water resource and other legislation.
My comments today will largely focus on drought not in any one specific location, but as a broader policy
issue. I will start by providing background and context on drought in general, including abbreviated
information on the status of the current drought in the western United States and prospects for future
droughts. I will then provide a broad survey of federal drought policy and authorities, along with a
summary of some current proposals for new and modified approaches to address drought.1
Background
Drought is a natural hazard with significant economic, social, and ecological consequences. Drought
broadly refers to periods of substantially below-average moisture conditions. Generally, there four
drought classifications:
Meteorological drought is typically the degree of dryness, in comparison to a “normal” or
average amount of dryness and the duration of a dry period. Meteorological drought is
region-specific, because precipitation deficiency varies regionally.
Hydrological drought reflects reduced surface and subsurface water supplies, such as
streamflows, reservoir and lake levels, snowpack, and groundwater. The frequency and
severity of this type of drought are measured on a watershed or river basin scale.
Agricultural and ecological drought links characteristics of meteorological or
hydrological drought to agricultural and ecological effects (such as plant-water-stress
contributions to tree mortality), often using precipitation shortfalls, evapotranspiration
differences,2 soil moisture deficits, reduced groundwater or reservoir levels, and other
variables.
Socioeconomic drought associates the “supply and demand of some economic goods with
elements of meteorological, hydrological, and agricultural drought.”
The U.S. Drought Monitor—a partnership between federal and nonfederal entities—uses multiple
indicators and indexes, together with expert opinion and stakeholder information, to estimate the intensity
and effects of ongoing drought conditions. This information is illustrated weekly in maps. The U.S.
Drought Monitor defines “drought” as “a moisture deficit bad enough to have social, environmental or
economic effects.”3 It depicts drought intensity in five categories with increasing intensity of drought—
D0 (abnormally dry), D1 (moderate), D2 (severe), D3 (extreme), and D4 (exceptional). The U.S. Drought
1 Nicole Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, and Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy, also assisted in
preparing this written testimony.
2 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 man-made reservoirs. For more about evapotranspiration, see USGS,
“Evapotranspiration and the Water Cycle,” at https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/
evapotranspiration-and-water-cycle?qt-science_center_objects=0.
3 U.S. Drought Monitor, “Drought Classification,” at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/About/AbouttheData/
DroughtClassification.aspx.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
link to page 4 Congressional Research Service
2
Monitor shows broad-scale regional drought conditions, but not necessarily drought circumstances at the
local scale. The estimated drought intensity reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor can serve as a trigger
for local, state, and federal responses to drought.
A multiyear drought (“long-term drought”) remains widespread across many western states, with some
areas in an extended period of extreme and/or exceptional drought.4 Although this winter’s storms were
beneficial, they did not end the drought. Much of the mountain snowpack in California and the northern
Great Basin are below normal for this time of the year and water levels at Lake Mead and Lake Powell
(the basin’s two largest reservoirs) have recently fallen to some of the lowest levels since those reservoirs
were filled. May 2020 through April 2022 was the second driest two-year period since 1895 in Arizona,
California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah and the fifth driest two-year period since 1895 in Colorado.5
Hot, dry, and windy conditions in New Mexico and parts of Arizona and Colorado have increased fuels
for wildfires and heighten the fire danger.6
The current western drought is the latest in a series of droughts that have affected the nation. Among
natural disasters in the United States since 1980, droughts rank third in terms of both total costs and costs
per year for damages.7 According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
from 1980 to 2021 29 drought events with costs over $1 billion occurred, and total losses from these
events exceeded $291 billion (CPI-adjusted dollars).8 In addition to the effect of drought on agricultural
production and local economies, drought can lead to water restrictions affecting municipal and industrial
supplies, decreased hydropower generation and power plant cooling efficiency, navigation limitations and
disruptions, harm to drought-sensitive ecosystems and species, and increased fire risk, among other
effects.
The West has a long history of drought, and many of the most costly droughts were in the 17 arid and
semiarid “reclamation states” in the western United States.9 The geographically widespread nature of
extreme and exceptional drought across the western United States over the past two years is notable
(Figure 1), as is the severity of the drought in some areas. In response to these conditions, Congress
appropriated funding and enacted authorities to address drought. Stakeholders and Members of Congress
have proposed additional measures as conditions continue and/or worsen.
4 Non-western states are captured in current national drought conditions map at https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap.aspx.
5 Presentation by Dan McEvoy, Western Regional Climate Center, “Drought Update and Wildfire Outlook Webinar for
California and the Southwest,” June 2, 2022.
6 Ibid.
7 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information, Disaster and
Risk Mapping, data for 1980-2021, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/mapping, accessed June 2, 2022.
8 Ibid.
9 Reclamation states are the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, as categorized in the Reclamation
Act of 1902, as amended. 34 Stat. 259.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
3
Figure 1. Drought Classification for Lands in the U.S. West
(percent of land area affected by varying levels of drought over time)
Source: U.S. Drought Monitor Time Series: West Geographic Region, Data as of 5/31/2022,
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DmData/TimeSeries.aspx.
Notes: Data is based on the western “geographic” region, which encompasses the fol owing nine western states: Arizona,
California, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The scientific understanding of the various contributors to and types of droughts is evolving. Droughts are
challenging to understand because they are shaped by interactions between natural weather and climate
variability, climate change, ecosystems, and human activities (e.g., land and water development and use).
Multiple researchers are evaluating the contribution of human-induced warming to observed droughts and
to droughts under a warmer climate. Some researchers are attempting to identify the role that human-
induced warming may have on the severity of observed droughts in specific U.S. regions such as the
southwestern United States, which has a history of droughts, including megadroughts.10
Experience with trying to understand the ongoing southwestern drought has led to the identification of
some ways to improve understanding of future drought risk; these include better understanding of the
following:
effects of climate change on atmospheric behavior leading to regional precipitation
patterns;
the importance of the inter-related variables that influenced the current southwest drought
and other droughts;
the impact and influence of key ocean-atmosphere interactions that influence weather and
climate variability over the United States (e.g., the influence of La Niña events);
changes to western snowpack and its implications; and
forecast errors that impact water management decisions.11
10 For example, researchers have estimated the human-induced climate change contribution to the 2000-2021 southwestern North
American drought, though they indicate there is a large range of uncertainty in the estimates, due in particular to the uncertainty
in how humans have affected the region’s precipitation (in contrast to more certainty in human effects on southwest drying). See
A.P. Williams, et al., “Rapid intensification of the emerging southwestern North American megadrought in 2020-2021,” 2022,
Nature Climate Change, vol. 12.
11 NOAA Climate Program Office, Assessment Report: NOAA Drought Task Force Report on the 2020-2021 Southwestern U.S.
Drought (website), https://cpo.noaa.gov/MAPP/DTF4SWReport#8405161-highlights.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
link to page 5 Congressional Research Service
4
Regarding observations of changes in drought for North America compared to a pre-industrial baseline
(1850-1900), the 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the physical science of
climate change indicated
low confidence on the type of changes to dryness relative to normal—meteorological
drought—for both western and eastern North America, and medium confidence in a
decrease in the duration and frequency of meteorological droughts in central North
America;12
medium confidence in an increase in agricultural and ecological drought in western
North America, and low agreement on the type of changes for agricultural and ecological
drought in central and eastern North America; and
low confidence for identifying changes to hydrologic drought for western, central, and
eastern North America.13
Confidence in projected future drought changes for North America with a warming climate varied by
region, type of drought, and temperature increase assumed.14
Drought Policy
The federal government generally defers to state primacy in surface and groundwater allocation, and
therefore states and local entities typically lead efforts to address drought. Most states have drought plans
in place, and some of these plans incorporate efforts to reduce drought vulnerabilities.15 The approach to
drought planning and preparedness varies significantly by state. Although many water allocation and
other water management responsibilities lie at the state or local level, stakeholders note that localities and
individuals often look to the federal government for relief when disasters occur. As a result, Congress has
enacted numerous authorities related to drought.
Following a series of droughts in the 1990s, representatives from federal and state governments formed
the Western Drought Coordination Council (WDCC) in 1996. Although the WDCC’s objectives were
focused on the western states, the council brought national attention to the issue of comprehensive
drought management.16 In response, Congress enacted the National Drought Policy Act (P.L. 105-199) in
1996, which created the National Drought Policy Commission (NDPC). In 2000, the NDPC submitted to
Congress a report with policy recommendations.17 Among other things, the NDPC concluded that the
12 For the drought information in the IPCC report, “low confidence” appears to be assessed for various reasons, including if there
is limited evidence, which may be due to a lack of data or studies, and if there is a lack of agreement on the type of change (e.g.,
mixed signals).
13 IPCC, “Chapter 11: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate,” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2021, Table 11.21, pp. 1701-1704, and IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers” in Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 2021, p. 10). According to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, “Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of
underlying evidence and agreement. A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and
very high, and typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence.” (p. 4).
14 For more information, see the references in footnote 12.
15 The National Drought Mitigation Center provides and collects information on state drought plans. See, http://drought.unl.edu/
Planning.aspx.
16 Among other things, the WDCC recommended the creation of a National Drought Policy Commission. See Western Drought
Coordination Council, The Western Drought Experience, The Western Drought Coordination Council’s Report to the National
Drought Policy Commission, Western Governors Association, Denver, Colorado, May 1999.
17 National Drought Policy Commission, Preparing for Drought in the 21st Century—A Report of the National Drought Policy
Commission, May 2000. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/finalreport/fullreport/pdf/reportfull.pdf (hereinafter, “National
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
link to page 6 link to page 6 Congressional Research Service
5
United States needed to embrace a national drought policy with preparedness at its core. It noted the
policy should support, but not supplant or interfere with, state, tribal, regional, local, and individual
efforts to reduce drought impacts.18 It also recommended that Congress enact a national drought
preparedness act to establish a federal-nonfederal “National Drought Council,” which , among other
things, would coordinate federal programs addressing drought.19
Congress, to date, has enacted part of the commission’s recommendations. In 2006 Congress approved
the creation of a multi-agency partnership administered by NOAA that aims to coordinate “drought
monitoring, forecasting, planning, and information at federal, tribal, state, and local levels across the
country.”20 Various congresses considered, but did not enact, more comprehensive drought legislation
(typically referred to as the “national drought preparedness act”), which would have created of a National
Drought Council chaired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), depending on the proposal.21 Some elements of the NDCP’s
recommendations, such as increased federal support for nonfederal drought preparedness planning and
resiliency projects, were adopted administratively under other agency authorities.22
Current Drought Coordination Efforts
Current federal efforts to coordinate preparations for and responses to drought takes several forms. The
two most established federal coordination mechanisms are 1) the National Drought Information System
(NIDIS) and 2) the National Drought Resiliency Partnership (NDRP).23
In 2006, Congress directed the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, also known as
the NOAA Administrator, to create NIDIS (P.L. 109-430).24 NIDIS coordinates and integrates drought
research in partnership with multiple federal agencies and nonfederal entities (e.g., nongovernmental
organizations and local governments). It integrates efforts on drought monitoring, forecasting, and
planning, and it supports both national drought monitoring and regional drought early warning systems,
as well as other drought public awareness and education actions.
The NDRP, initiated in 2013 and formally established by presidential memorandum in 2016 under the
Obama Administration, comprises federal agencies that aim to leverage technical and financial federal
resources, strengthen communication, and foster collaboration to support efforts to build capacity for
Drought Policy Commission Report”). The commission was disbanded after submitting its report to Congress.
18 National Drought Policy Commission Report, p. v.
19 The study found that 88 drought-related federal programs were funded within the past ten years. Seven of these programs
provided assistance for drought planning, 42 for drought mitigation, 22 for drought- related monitoring/prediction and research,
and 47 for drought response. (The numbers total more than 88 because some programs cover more than one facet of drought.)
See National Drought Policy Commission Report, p. 16.
20 P.L. 109-430, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 313d. For more information on NIDIS, see discussion in “Current Drought Coordination
Efforts” and https://www.drought.gov/about.
21 This legislation was introduced in various iterations in the 107th Congress (S. 2528 and H.R. 4754), 108th Congress (S. 1454
and H.R. 2871), 109th Congress (S. 802 and H.R. 1386), and 113th Congress (H.R. 2642).
22 For example, under authority provided in Section 9504 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11),
the Bureau of Reclamation increased its support for drought preparedness efforts through the creation grant programs for drought
contingency and drought resiliency projects. Prior to the initiation of these programs, Reclamation’s drought-related activities
were largely focused on emergency response actions as authorized in the Reclamation States Drought Relief Act of 1991 (P.L.
102-250).
23 Other entities, such as the National Climate Task Force and the President’s Water Subcabinet, among others, also provide
venues for coordination and collaboration related to drought activities.
24 Congress modified the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) authorization in 2014 and 2019 (P.L. 113-86
and P.L. 115-423, respectively).
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
6
drought resilience. It aims to coordinate federal drought policies among more than 22 federal agencies
that have a role in national water policies. In May 2021, the Biden Administration established a new
framework for coordination in addition to the NDRP, the White House Drought Resilience Interagency
Working Group, which coordinates the actions of 14 federal departments and aims to prioritize federal
investments to address drought.25 The Working Group is chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior.
Federal Drought Authorities
Congress over time has enacted a range of authorities related to drought. Most federal financial aid for
drought addresses agricultural production loss and rural water supplies; other authorities address drought-
related monitoring and research, including early warning and tracking of various drought metrics and
conditions; whereas others involve emergency drinking water supply assistance. Still other authorities
focus on short and long-term drought response and mitigation. These authorities can take multiple forms,
including federal assistance for local and state drought planning and nonfederal water supply projects that
increase drought resilience or develop new water supplies, as well as for the construction of new or
expanded federal water storage projects and operational modifications of existing facilities to yield
additional water supplies. In some cases, the federal government, at congressional direction, has provided
targeted regulatory relief for drought-stricken areas (e.g., changes to environmental requirements to
facilitate water transfers in specific areas).
Multiple federal agencies contribute to efforts to predict, plan for, and respond to drought.26 NOAA, the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the USDA, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration all play roles in
drought-related forecasting, warning, monitoring, and research. Some examples of major agency drought-
programs and activities include
NOAA’s NIDIS program serves as a coordinating mechanism for federal drought-related
monitoring, forecasting, planning, and research.27
Multiple USDA programs provides the primary federal financial aid to lessen drought’s
impacts and compensate producers for loss in agricultural production after the onset of
drought. Congress has also authorized financial and technical support for farmers and
ranchers to manage drought risk and heighten adaptive measures.28
Federal water resource agencies such as the Reclamation and USACE face tradeoffs in
operating federal water projects during drought, and in many cases have worked with
users to develop project-specific drought contingency plans to address dry conditions.
Both agencies also have programmatic authorities to conduct activities to mitigate
drought impacts and provide support for nonfederal drought preparedness, resiliency and
mitigation projects.
25 A progress report on the Working Group’s first year is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/
DroughtIWGReport_Final_Embargoed-Until-June-1-at-6AM-ET.pdf.
26 For an overview of federal drought preparedness and response authorities related to agricultural, environmental, and natural
resources policy, see CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal Authorities,
coordinated by Charles V. Stern and Eva Lipiec.
27 NIDIS, “Advancing Drought Science and Preparedness Across the Nation,” at https://www.drought.gov/.
28 For additional information on the USDA disaster assistance programs, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster
Assistance, by Megan Stubbs; and CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation, by Megan
Stubbs.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
7
Various other federal agencies and emergency authorities also play a role in drought
response and mitigation, for example:
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides financial assistance
for nonfederal water supply projects and other water resiliency-related programs,
and
FEMA funds programs which may assist communities to prepare for and reduce
drought risks, such as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.29
Recent Developments
In 2021, Congress appropriated new financial resources to respond to drought, including activities
expected to improve drought monitoring, preparedness, and resiliency support provided by multiple
agencies. These resources included funding in Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations for FY2022
(Division B of P.L. 117-43) and in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58). The
former funding included $10 billion for USDA to cover qualifying agricultural losses in areas categorized
as D2-D4 from 2020 and 2021, as well as $200 million for Reclamation-related drought efforts. P.L. 117-
58, the IIJA, included funding for a number broad and geographically-targeted categories related to
drought:
$300 million over five fiscal years to Reclamation for Colorado River Basin Drought
Contingency Plan funding.
$1 billion over five fiscal years for Reclamation’s Title XVI water reuse and recycling
program.
$250 million over five fiscal years for Reclamation contributions to eligible desalination
projects.
$400 million over five fiscal years for Reclamation WaterSMART water and energy
efficiency grants.
$80 million over five fiscal years to NOAA for high-performance computing to improve
climate and weather modeling capabilities, related to drought, flood, and wildfire
prediction, detection, and forecasting
$492 million over five fiscal years to NOAA for coastal and inland flood and inundation
mapping and forecasting and for next-generation water modeling activities, including
modernized precipitation frequency and maximum studies.
$25 million over three fiscal years to NOAA for data acquisition activities pursuant to a
soil moisture and snowpack monitoring pilot program in the Upper Missouri River Basin
and an additional $1 million to NOAA over four fiscal years to NOAA to study the pilot
program.
$40 million to USACE for Upper Missouri River Basin soil moisture and snowpack
monitoring.
29 See CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation, by Diane P. Horn. FEMA uses
the term mitigation and defines mitigation as “any sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property
from natural hazards and their effects.”
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
link to page 9 
Congressional Research Service
8
$918 million over five fiscal years for USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service
watershed programs, including the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations,
Watershed Rehabilitation, and Emergency Watershed Protection Programs.30
Some of these programs address drought directly, while others address it indirectly or among other
priorities. Broadly, these funding increases significantly add to the financial resources available for
drought mitigation and resiliency efforts relative to existing funding baselines. For example, Figure 2
shows the funding ramp-up for several of Reclamation’s primary drought-related programs over the
FY2016-FY2022 time period.31 However, due to the expected “lag” in obligating these funds, it will take
several years before their effects are fully realized.
Figure 2. Funding for Selected Bureau of Reclamation Drought-Related Programs
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on recent enacted appropriations and Bureau of Reclamation Spend Plan
data.
Notes: FY2022 totals reflect additional supplemental funding in P.L. 117-43 and P.L. 117-58. Title XVI = Reclamation’s
Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling Program.
Despite these funding increases, drought challenges remain. In many cases, drought is increasing
competition for already-scarce water supplies, contributing to conflicts among users and other
stakeholders. These conflicts stress existing institutional water management frameworks and existing
water sources. For instance, one of the most common reactions to drought is for users to rely more on
groundwater resources. Increased groundwater pumping or drilling of additional wells can cause aquifers
to decline, leading to lost access for some users.
Policy Options for Addressing Drought
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
30 For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF11990, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Funding for USDA
Broadband, Watershed, and Bioproduct Programs, by Lisa S. Benson, Megan Stubbs, and Kelsi Bracmort.
31 Spend plans showing Reclamation’s allocation of funds for specific programs and projects are available at
https://www.usbr.gov/budget/.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
9
federal water resource projects in particular. In addition to making avaialble new resources to existing
programs and authorities discussed above, some have proposed other, often interrelated, actions to help
plan for and respond to drought. Several of these proposals are discussed below, with an emphasis on
activities within this Committee’s jurisdiction. The proposals are broadly divided into planning and
preparedness, data and monitoring, augmented supplies, and demand management.
Supporting Planning and Preparedness
Drought resilience is determined not only by actions in the midst of a drought, but also by investments,
decisions, and behaviors in place at the onset of a drought. The 2000 NDPC report highlighted the need
for better drought preparedness and the need to move away from the reactive or crisis management mode
of dealing with drought.32 Today, most states and some communities have some form of drought plan to
prepare and plan for drought. Various sources of federal assistance are available for states and
communities for drought planning; some federal programs may fund drought planning efforts directly,
whereas others may offer technical assistance.
One of the National Drought Resilience Partnership’s 2019 priorities for federal agencies (the last such
priorities that were published) was to better coordinate drought planning and capacity-building
programs.33 This goal included enhancing state and sub-state drought planning capabilities for more
effective coordination of their drought planning efforts, as well as increased coordination of drought
planning in hazard mitigation strategies. Achieving greater drought resilience through drought planning
and related actions may necessitate more progress on these priority actions. It also may involve planners
placing increased emphasis on drought mitigation projects. A September 2021 letter to 10 western
governors from National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy highlighted the availability of FEMA BRIC
and Hazard Mitigation funds to support planning and related actions that reduce drought vulnerabilities.34
Drought planning and preparedness are also being increasingly considered in the context of conserving
ecosystems and fish and wildlife species. Scientists studying the impacts of drought on ecosystems and
species and are being supported by federal efforts aimed at creating “baseline” science to inform
management of the ecological impacts of drought.35 Some have proposed increased resources to plan for
sustaining biodiversity and fisheries during drought.36
Expanding Data and Monitoring
Drought data collection and integration has been a point of emphasis by federal agencies in recent years,
and constituted one of six NDRP priority actions in 2019.37 Various efforts are underway to share and
improve drought information, including monitoring networks (e.g., the National Soil Moisture Network,
32 National Drought Policy Commission Report, p. 2.
33 National Drought Resilience Partnership, Priority Actions Supporting Long-Term Drought Resilience, 2019 (hereinafter,
NDRP Priority Actions).
34 Letter from Gina McCarthy, National Climate Advisor, to The Honorable Gavin C. Newsome, Governor of California,
September 15, 2021.
35 One major ongoing effort is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Climate Adaptation Science Centers effort to synthesize the
“state of the science” on transformational drought. For more information, see https://cascprojects.org/#/project/
4f8c64d2e4b0546c0c397b46/5d40ac2fe4b01d82ce8d9db0.
36 Jeffrey Mount, et al., Managing Drought in a Changing Climate, Public Policy Institute of California, 2018, at
https://www.ppic.org/publication/managing-drought-in-a-changing-climate-four-essential-reforms/. For legislative proposals, see
Sections 304 and 307 of S. 953 and H.R. 3404, respectively.
37 NDRP Priority Actions.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
10
innovations through the USGS Next Generation Water Observation System, or NGWOS).38 These and
other efforts are ongoing, but have the potential to improve overall understanding of drought and
strengthen NIDIS’s National Drought Early Warning System.39 Some also have advocated for additional
resources for NOAA subseasonal to seasonal forecasting efforts (sometimes referred to as “S2S
forecasting”).40 If improved, these forecasts could help water managers and other stakeholders better
prepare for and respond to drought conditions.41
Some have advocated for additional drought-related data collection, dissemination, and coordination by
federal agencies. For example, one proposal in the 117th Congress would direct federal agencies to
develop a national water data framework, including national water data standards to improve the
integration, sharing, and use of water data across federal and nonfederal entities.42 Another proposal
would direct the USGS to provide estimates of evapotranspiration across large landscapes to a variety of
users.43
There may be additional opportunities to employ emerging and novel techniques to analyze drought-
related data. For example, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) has and may continue to improve weather
and climate understanding and forecasting, while saving on computational costs and using greater
amounts of available observations.44 Several individual federal agencies and NIDIS have supported the
use of these techniques to better understand and forecast drought, among other climate phenomena.45
Experts have also begun to characterize drought by how quickly drought conditions begin, with some
scientists using the term flash drought to identify rapid-onset drought conditions. Flash droughts often
develop with little warning; they are usually caused by anomalously high temperatures, winds, and/or
solar radiation rather than by precipitation deficits. NOAA has been releasing experimental flash drought
monitors and forecasts on various timescales as part of its subseasonal prediction products.46
38 For more information on the National Soil Moisture Network, see http://nationalsoilmoisture.com/. For more information on
the USGS Next Generation Water Observation System, see CRS Report R45695, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Streamgaging
Network: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Anna E. Normand.
39 For more information, and drought early warning, see NOAA, NIDIS, “About Drought Early Warning,” at
https://www.drought.gov/about/drought-early-warning.
40 “Subseasonal” is generally considered to be forecasts in the period of two weeks to three months, whereas “seasonal” consists
of the period from three months to two years. For more information, see NOAA, Subseasonal and Seasonal Forecasting
Innovation: Plans for the Twenty-First Century, Report pursuant to Section 201 of the Weather Research and Forecasting
Innovation Act of 2017 P.L. 115-525.
41 See Testimony of Earl Lewis, Chief Engineer, Western States Water Council, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Subcommittee on Conservation, Climate, Forestry, and Natural Resources, The Western
Water Crisis: Confronting Persistent Drought and Building Resilience on our Forests and Farmland, hearing, 117th Cong., 2nd
sess., June 7, 2022.
42 See H.R. 7792, 117th Congress.
43 See S. 2568, 117th Congress.
44 Sue Ellen Haupt et al., “The History and Practice of AI in the Environmental Sciences,” Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, vol. 103, no. 5 (May 24, 2022), pp. E1351-E1370. For more about artificial intelligence, see CRS Report
R46795, Artificial Intelligence: Background, Selected Issues, and Policy Considerations, by Laurie A. Harris.
45 For example, see NIDIS, “Quantifying the Relative Importance of Multiple Drought Indicators in the U.S. Drought Monitor as
a Function of Location and Time of Year,” at https://www.drought.gov/drought-research/quantifying-relative-importance-
multiple-drought-indicators-us-drought-monitor.
46 NOAA National Weather Service Climate Prediction Center, “Flash/Subseasonal Drought Information,” at
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Drought/Subseasonal/. For more information on flash droughts in general, see
https://www.drought.gov/what-is-drought/flash-drought.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
link to page 9 Congressional Research Service
11
Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations
Potential alterations to federal and nonfederal reservoir operations to address drought conditions are
another area of recent interest among some stakeholders. Pilot projects of Forecast-Informed Reservoir
Operation (FIRO) illustrate how dams may be operated more dynamically, in lieu of fixed release and
storage schedules (e.g., by retaining water in storage that would have been released to create space for a
flood control pool to remain in storage). These operations are informed by advancements in weather and
hydrologic forecasting and watershed modeling.47 To date the most prominent applications of FIRO in the
United States have been to improve water supply reliability without compromising flood risk
management. Scientists at the USGS, NOAA, and academic institutions have worked with federal
operational agencies (i.e., USACE and Reclamation) and state and local agencies on a limited number of
pilot FIRO projects at reservoirs in California and the Pacific Northwest.
How widely and how quickly benefits of forecast-informed operations may assist in drought preparedness
is an area of interest and ongoing research. In late 2020, Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to
produce a report identifying additional opportunities for applying FIRO across the United States.48
Augmenting Water Supplies
New and Expanded Water Storage Projects
Historically, the federal approach to the arid West’s seasonal and multi-year variability in water
availability was to improve reliability through construction of large federal water storage and conveyance
systems. Congress’s 2016 enactment of Section 4007 of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation Act (WIIN Act, P.L. 116-322) authorized the first significant Reclamation financial support for
new water storage project construction in decades. Since the WIIN Act’s enactment, Reclamation has
allocated $603 million for the study or construction of 13 projects in three western states, with hundreds
of millions in additional funding for these projects appropriated by Congress but currently pending
allocation.49
Some stakeholders support extension of the WIIN Act’s authorities, which are largely being used to
provide federal support for nonfederal storage projects in lieu of new, federally-owned projects (although
some federal projects also have been funded by Reclamation).50 Extension of these authorities, along with
any new authorization or reporting process that Congress determines preferable, likely would result in the
construction of additional projects. Some in Congress argue that if this authority is reauthorized, it should
47 Dams with federal flood control storage have often used runoff measurements and other observations (e.g., snowpack or soil
moisture) to inform decisions related to storing or releasing water. FIRO augments that data with watershed monitoring and
weather and water forecasting (including atmospheric river forecasting) to inform water management decisions.
48 The Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020, Division AA of P.L. 116-260), Section 157. Also in Section
157 of WRDA 2020, Congress directed that the USACE assessment of the viability of Forecast-Informed Operation (FIRO) in
two specific basins. Section 3404 of H.R. 3404, as introduced, would require that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
use $10 million of its appropriations annually to prepare forecast-informed water control manuals and to integrate FIRO into the
Corps Water Management System (a system USACE uses to evaluate watershed hydrology including before it makes reservoir
releases).
49 Eight projects were found feasible prior to the WIIN Act’s deadline of a positive feasibility study finding by January 1, 2021,
and are thus eligible for ongoing funding. See CRS In Focus IF10626, Reclamation Water Storage Projects: Section 4007 of the
Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, by Charles V. Stern. Also see Figure 2 above.
50 See for example H.R. 737, H.R. 1015, and H.R. 1563, 117th Congress.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
12
be amended to incentivize certain types of storage projects, such as multi-benefit projects or projects that
contribute to sustainable yield goals.51 To date, the authority has been used to fund a mix of projects.52
Groundwater storage, aquifer recharge, and other similar projects are increasingly viewed as an option in
lieu of (or in addition to) traditional water development projects or as a means to reduce groundwater
pumping.53 In Section 40910 of the IIJA, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide
technical or financial assistance for groundwater recharge, aquifer storage and recovery projects, and
water source substitution for aquifer protection projects.54 This authority has yet to be funded. Congress is
also considering authorization of a USACE feasibility study on carrying out managed aquifer recharge
projects to address drought, water resiliency, and aquifer depletion on a nationwide basis.55
Alternative Water Supplies
Apart from new water storage, alternative water supply projects—such as water reuse, recycling and
desalination—are rapidly expanding throughout the West and hold promise for augmenting water supplies
in drought-prone areas. Although these projects take time to develop and typically are more expensive
than traditional water supplies, in some locations they are cost competitive and are preferred for their
increased reliability.
Reclamation’s Title XVI Program provides cost-shared financial assistance for authorized nonfederal
studies and construction projects that provide supplemental water supplies by recycling or reusing
agricultural drainage water, wastewater, brackish surface and groundwater, and other sources of
contaminated water. Similarly, Reclamation’s Desalination Program provides federal financial support for
selected nonfederal desalination projects approved by Congress. EPA’s Clean Water and Drinking Water
State Revolving Funds also may be used for these and related projects.56
Barriers to wider adoption of these approaches vary depending on the technology, water source, and
location, and are also influenced by financial, regulatory, and political contexts. EPA’s Water Reuse
Action Plan aims to drive progress in many of these areas as they relate to water reuse and recycling.57
Areas of significant potential growth include potable reuse (i.e., the use of treated wastewater for
drinking), the use of treated water for agricultural production, and reuse of produced waters (i.e., water
from oil and gas operations).58 Some in Congress have proposed increased prioritization for alternative
supplies with multiple benefits and/or stakeholders,59 or for projects that are constructed in rural areas.60
51 “In the context of water resources, “sustainable yield” is typically referred to as the amount of water that can be withdrawn
from a system with acceptable consequences. For legislative proposal examples, see Section 106 of S. 4231 and H.R. 3404, 117th
Congress.
52 This has included new traditional on and off-stream water storage (storage in a surface reservoir off of the mainstream of a
water body), expanded storage at existing projects, restoration of canal conveyance capacity, and groundwater banking.
53 For more information on groundwater issues, see CRS Report R45259, The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply, by Peter
Folger et al.
54 P.L. 117-58, Section 409010(a).
55 See Section 112 of H.R. 7776, as passed by the House, 117th Congress.
56 For more information about these and other water supply programs, see CRS Report RL30478, Federally Supported Water
Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
57 See United States Environmental Protection Agency, Water Reuse Action Plan, https://www.epa.gov/waterreuse/water-reuse-
action-plan. Accessed June 6, 2022.
58 Western States Water Council, Water Reuse in the West, Western State Water Reuse Governance and Programs, June 2021, p.
7. https://westernstateswater.org/publications/other-reports/2021/2021-water-reuse-report/ (hereinafter, “Water Reuse in the
West.”)
59 For example, see Section 101 of H.R. 3404 and S. 4231, 117th Congress.
60 For example, see Section 104 of S. 4231, 117th Congress.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
13
Some have also proposed tax incentives for some of those adopting alternative water supply approaches.61
In addition to funding and policy options, some states have also expressed that increased federal technical
assistance for water reuse projects would also be helpful.62
Water Infrastructure Investment Financing Options
Other sources of infrastructure financing for nonfederal drought resiliency-related water infrastructure
projects include EPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and USACE’s
Civil Works Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP), both of which are authorized to fund drought
mitigation projects.63 To date, the WIFIA program has financed several drought-related projects, including
multiple water reuse/recycling, desalination, and groundwater management projects.64 Some have
proposed enactment of a similar program for Reclamation (a “Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act,” or “RIFIA,” which would be limited to water supply projects in reclamation states).65
Water Infrastructure Efficiency Improvements and New Technologies
Multiple federal authorities promote the adoption of water efficient infrastructure or incentivize the
development of new technologies. Reclamation’s WaterSMART grants program provides financial
assistance for projects that increase water and energy efficiency, as well as for other projects that aid local
partners in preparing for and/or mitigating the effects of drought. Some have proposed changes to
WaterSMART itself, such as the expansion of WaterSMART grants to other methods of “water
management improvement,” or requiring that these projects not increase consumptive water uses.
Previously, the NDRP highlighted the potential benefits of better aligning WaterSMART with other water
conservation programs to maximize potential benefits.66 For example, the USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance for watershed activities that
conserve, develop, and use land and water resources, among other things, and projects could be aligned
more between the two programs.67 Since 2011, NRCS has partnered with BOR to complement
WaterSMART funded projects by using NRCS programs to fund water conservation improvements on
farm and ranch land that align with WaterSMART projects.68
Several federal agencies, including Reclamation, EPA, NRCS, and the Department of Energy are
supporting various grants and other programs to incentivize new water technologies and scale-up existing
61 See Water Reuse Foundation, Investment Tax Credit for Industrial Reuse, Position Paper, at https://watereuse.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/09/Policy-Paper-Investment-Tax-Credit-July-2017.pdf.
62 Water Reuse in the West.
63 Se Title V, Subtitle C of P.L. 113-121, as amended (33 U.S.C. §§3901-3914). While both EPA and USACE funding is
authorized to support drought mitigation projects, to date CWIFP funding has only been used to fund non-federal dam safety
projects. See CRS Insight IN11577, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Infrastructure Financing Program (CWIFP):
Status and Issues, by Nicole T. Carter, Anna E. Normand, and Elena H. Humphreys.
64 For more information, see EPA, “WIFIA Letters of Interest Table,” at https://www.epa.gov/wifia/wifia-letters-interest-table,
accessed June 6, 2022. EPA has also created a Water Finance Clearinghouse to help communities locate information on funding
resources and financing mechanisms to help communities meet their water infrastructure needs. See United States Environmental
Protection Agency Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center, Water Finance Clearinghouse,
https://clearinghouse.epa.gov/ords/wfc/f?p=165:6:2382918520683:::6::, accessed June 6, 2022.
65 For example, see Section 105 of S. 4231, 117th Congress.
66 NDRP, Priority Actions.
67 For more information, see CRS Report R46471, Federally Supported Projects and Programs for Wastewater, Drinking Water,
and Water Supply Infrastructure, coordinated by Jonathan L. Ramseur.
68 For additional information, see USDA, NRCS, “EQIP WaterSMART Initiative (WSI): FY2021 Progress Report,”
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/nrcseprd1919237.pdf.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
14
methods. In some cases, these investments have the potential to facilitate improved water management
practices for various project types. Some have proposed formal authorization and expansion of these
efforts, including authorization of a Reclamation prize competitions for water technology innovation.69
Managing Demand for Scarce Water Resources
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. Demand management is a broad term in water policy that
may encompass a number of different approaches that serve to decrease overall demand for water during
a drought (or in other periods). Demand management can include programs such as
payments for temporary fallowing of land,
voluntary or mandatory water restrictions or conservation targets (e.g., state or local
landscape watering limitations),
industrial and residential water pricing that may apply during periods of drought (often
referred to scarcity pricing).
Another facet of demand management can be facilitation of mechanisms that allow or foster users to
move water to where it is perceived to be most needed during times of scarcity. This can be done through
water markets and water transfers. Reclamation makes available some of its WaterSMART funding for
state and local programs that encourage the adoption of water markets (Water Marketing Strategy Grants).
Demand management also can be used to encourage specific types of transactions. For example, Congress
has enacted multiple authorities for Reclamation and other agencies to fund projects that acquire water for
environmental purposes during drought.70 Some have proposed amendments and additions to these
authorities, such as temporary payments for water transfers and/or idling of crops for water conservation
and habitat creation activities.71 Others have backed more permanent solutions, such as using funds to
acquire water and/or land to protect headwaters or groundwater aquifers, or to purchase senior water
rights that can be used to permanently benefit instream flows for fisheries habitat.72
69 See Section 203 of H.R. 3404 , 117th Congress.
70 Specifically, see Section 40907 of P.L. 117-58 and Section 102 of P.L. 102-250. Congress has also authorized these programs
in specific locations, such as in the Colorado River Basin. See 43 U.S.C. §620 note.
71 See for example, Section 301 of S. 4231 and Section 201 of S. 953, 117th Congress.
72 See for example, California State Senate, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Senate Climate Budget Plan, May 10,
2022. https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/Agenda_Sub_2_May_10_Final.pdf.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
Congressional Research Service
15
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
CRS TESTIMONY
Prepared for Congress —————————————————————————————————
TE10076