Full text of DOI:10.1080/02508060108686927

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]
On: 28 October 2014, At: 14:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Water International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20
Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science in
Australia and the U.S.A.
David H. White a , Donald A. Wilhite b , Bruce O'Meagher b & Graeme L. Hammer d
a Colorado State University , Canberra, ACT, Australia
b University of Nebraska-Lincoln , Nebraska, USA
c Department of Industry, Science and Resources , Canberra, ACT, Australia
d Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit , Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Published online: 22 Jan 2009.
To cite this article: David H. White , Donald A. Wilhite , Bruce O'Meagher & Graeme L. Hammer (2001) Highlights of Drought
Policy and Related Science in Australia and the U.S.A., Water International, 26:3, 349-357, DOI: 10.1080/02508060108686927
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060108686927
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Water Resources Association
Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, Pages 349–357, September 2001
Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science
in Australia and the U.S.A.
David H. White, ASIT Consulting, Canberra, ACT, Australia, Donald A. Wilhite,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Nebraska, USA, Bruce O’Meagher, Department of
Industry, Science and Resources, Canberra, ACT, Australia, and Graeme L. Hammer,
Agricultural Production Systems Research Unit, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Abstract: Patterns of water supply and use in Australia and the U.S.A. differ in many ways. This
results in different perceptions concerning the nature of drought and policy approaches to its manage-
ment. This paper discusses the differences and similarities and explores lessons that policy makers in
both countries can learn from one another. A key difference between the two countries is that whereas
drought is perceived in Australia essentially in terms of its impact on agriculture, in the U.S. both
perceptions and policy are also heavily influenced by the impact of drought on urban communities. This
has led to different policy emphases. In 1992 Australia established its National Drought Policy; the U.S.
is presently considering the adoption of a national drought policy. These policies highlight drought
being accepted as part of natural climate variability, rather than as a natural disaster. They also
emphasize the protection of the natural resource base.
Keywords: Drought policy, water management, climate variability, risk management.
These balances ignore the substantial spatial and tempo-
ral variability, an average surface-water runoff of 776 mm
per annum in Tasmania contrasting with less than 0.7 mm
Introduction
Country comparisons can assist in policy development
from the Western Plateau. In terms of annual river runoff
and implementation, particularly if attention is focused on
how different policies have evolved and their relative mer-
2
per unit area (306 mm from 3,210 km ), Australia is in-
deed the driest continent.
its and deficiencies (O’Meagher et al., 1998; Wilhite, 2001).
Policy assessment and implementation can be difficult,
Smith (1998) estimated 12, 9, and 79 percent of water
in Australia to be used for domestic, industrial and agri-
however, if key elements of a policy change.
cultural purposes, respectively, compared with 12, 46, and
42 percent in the U.S. (Gleick, 1993). In Australia only
2
0.31 percent of the land area (24,000 km ) is irrigated;
Climate and Topography
2
half of this is pasture. By comparison, 255,000 km in the
U.S. were irrigated in 2000 (Annual Irrigation Survey,
The climate and agriculture of Australia and the United
States of America differ in many ways. Australia is a pre-
dominantly arid country with the most variable rainfall and
runoff of any continent in the world (McMahon et al., 1992);
2000).
Agriculture in much of the U.S., particularly the pri-
mary grain growing areas to the east of the Great Plains,
one consequence is that the volume of dam storages needed
experiences much greater and more reliable rainfall than
to give a set level of reliability for supply needs to be much
is experienced in much of Australia. However, variability
higher. McMahon et al. found that the level of storage
in annual rainfall is very high in parts of the southwest
capacity required in Australia to meet 80 percent of de-
(Ripley, 1992), and certainly appreciable over much of
mand with a 95 percent reliability was 3.75 times that of
the Great Plains that extend through the midwest of the
North America.
country from eastern Montana and North Dakota in the
An examination of the hydrological balances in both
north to Texas in the south. Both countries are at opposite
countries is enlightening. At a national level in Australia
ends of the Southern Oscillation so that El Niño and La
the allocation of incoming precipitation to evapotranspira-
Niña climatic events are associated with drought in Aus-
tion, river runoff, and groundwater recharge is 88, 11, and
tralia and to a lesser extent in the U.S. The principal link-
1 percent, respectively (Smith, 1998). This compares with
ages with drought in the U.S. are between La Niña and
about 66 percent of precipitation in the U.S. being lost
the southwestern and southeastern portions of the coun-
through evapotranspiration (U.S. Geological Survey, 1993).
try.
349

350
D.H. White, D. A. Wilhite, B. O’Meagher, and G. L. Hammer
Rainfall, together with varied temperature ranges and gin. Australian agriculture is therefore predominantly ex-
a variable geology, demarcates a host of natural agro-eco- tensive and, with the exception of drought assistance,
logical zones within both countries from highly productive largely unsubsidized. In the higher rainfall areas of south-
arable land to arid grazing lands of low carrying capacity ern and eastern Australia, agriculture is characterized by
and productivity. Australia is predominantly low-lying, apart dairy and beef cattle, horticulture, and prime lamb produc-
from the Great Dividing Range in the east. Rainfall above tion. Most wheat production, in association with sheep, is
600 mm per annum is confined to the northern, eastern, located in the southeast and southwest, between the 300
and southeastern coastal regions and the southwestern tips and 600 mm annual rainfall isohyets, though wheat pro-
of Australia. The south is characterized by a Mediterra- duction further north moves to higher rainfall areas. The
nean-type climate with cold, wet winters and hot, dry sum- balance of Australia’s wool and beef production takes
mers. Annual pastures in the south usually germinate place in the pastoral zone, most of which has considerably
between March and May in response to autumn rains, less than 600 mm rainfall a year. A large part of the center
growth being most active in spring before senescence in of Australia is desert or very arid rangelands that in most
October to November. The north experiences a monsoonal years are able to support relatively few grazing animals.
climate, most of the rainfall occurring in late summer to For example, carrying capacities over vast areas are typi-
autumn.
The continental U.S. (excluding Alaska and Hawaii)
2
cally less than four head of cattle per km .
Agriculture in the U.S., on the other hand, is typically
lies entirely within the temperate zones, between the Tropic more intensive than in Australia, livestock production be-
of Cancer and 50 degrees north. Thus any climatic ex- ing dominated by feedlot beef production, and large pig
tremes occurring in the country are the result of altitude, and poultry enterprises. Cereal production is dominated
orographic factors or continentality (Macquarie World by maize and wheat, with widespread production of oil-
Atlas, 1994). Annual rainfall varies from near zero in the seed and legume crops such as sorghum, sunflowers, and
inland desert states, such as Nevada and Arizona, to more soybeans.
than 1,000 mm along the northwest and eastern coasts.
People tend to settle in close proximity to water and
Considerable moisture can be deposited as snow, particu- productive land. Rainfall and natural or man-made water
larly in the northern states and mountainous regions. The storages and distribution systems are therefore all impor-
humid East Coast is characterized by warm summers, re- tant. In Australia about 85 percent of the population live in
liable and well distributed rainfall, and growing seasons urban areas (Macquire World Atlas, 1994), mostly in
ranging from 120 to 200 frost free days. Rainfall in the coastal cities within the high rainfall zone — indeed, Aus-
humid Pacific Coast is concentrated during the winter tralia is one of the most heavily urbanized nations in the
months and summers are generally dry, becoming classi- world. In contrast, the extensive areas of high rainfall and
cally Mediterranean in areas of California. The western fertile soils of the continental U.S. have resulted in 39
intermontane region receives a very low rainfall, as a con- percent of the population being located in the inland states.
sequence of both orographic and continental factors, al-
Water use patterns in both countries are heavily influ-
though only a small area is true desert. To the east of the enced by a combination of seasonal and cyclical meteoro-
Rockies lies a transitional zone that was once tall grass logical factors and by population distribution patterns. A
prairie. This area, known as the Great Plains, is charac- significant difference between the two countries in times
terized by temperature extremes resulting from con- of drought is that in Australia, the emphasis is generally on
tinentality and experiences erratic rainfall from year to agriculturally related problems; whereas in the U.S., the
year. The 500 mm rainfall isohyet closely follows the 100º more dispersed distribution of heavily populated areas and
west meridian, separating the high plains grazing lands from of associated industrial areas means that a broader range
vast areas under crop. The mountains in the west of the of concerns are raised. In addition to the impacts of drought
country have an extraordinarily complex range of climates, on agriculture, the pressures of a larger and more urban-
from near-Arctic conditions to savanna-covered valleys. ized population result in significant impacts on transporta-
Drought has also been a recurrent feature of the Ameri- tion, energy, and industrial sectors in the United States.
can landscape, resulting in significant impacts in many Recreational uses of water also suffer during drought pe-
sectors of the economy, including agriculture, transporta- riods. In addition, environmental concerns also bear heavily
tion, energy, recreation, and health. It has also had ad- on water use during droughts, as noted during 2001 in the
verse environmental consequences.
Klamath Basin in the Pacific Northwest. Drought policy
in the Delaware Basin, for instance, can be dominated by
the interests of several heavily populated urban centers,
including New York city, rather than by agriculture. Ur-
Land, Water, and Population Distribution
Australia is dominated by ancient, fragile soils that have ban drought in Australia is seldom a problem, despite the
been deeply weathered and leached, whereas the U.S. variability in the rainfall, because of the earlier emphasis
has vast areas of deep fertile loams of mostly glacial ori- on building water storages, almost regardless of cost.
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science in Australia and the U.S.A.
351
volvement in water and drought management decision
making. The recent codification of COAG-based (Coun-
Political, Legal, and Administrative Influences
The political, legal, and administrative systems influ- cil of Australian Governments) water reforms introduces
ence approaches to drought management in both coun- the use of economic instruments such as market value
tries. Both are federations whose political and legal systems and transferable water entitlements to promote more effi-
are characterized by the separation of powers character- cient use of water. Economic rationalism is being tem-
istic of most modern, democratic political systems. Re- pered by recognition that environmental flows should be
sponsibility for water and drought management rests included as a water use (Smith, 1998). This already sensi-
principally with the states, although increasingly the na- tive issue will become more so when Australia next has a
tional governments of both countries are exercising influ- major drought.
ence on these matters. In Australia, a well-known
inter-governmental instrument for water management is
Evolution of Drought and Related
the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (Murray-Darling
Policies in Australia
Basin Ministerial Council, 1990). Similarly, in the U.S. the
Delaware Basin water management arrangements repre-
The evolution of government responses to drought has
sent a significant inter-governmental initiative (Hansler, been reviewed, among others, by Wilhite (1986),
1991). In Australia, the national government has played a O’Meagher et al. (1998, 1999), and Heathcote (1999) for
significant role in shaping drought policies for some de- Australia, and by Wilhite (1986, 1993, 1997a) for the U.S.A.
cades although a national drought policy was only adopted The process in Australia has been a fitful one dating from
in 1992. The involvement of the national government in colonial times. The objectives of such intervention were
drought management policy is also becoming more signifi- to alleviate the adverse impact of drought on farm incomes
cant in the U.S., as discussed below.
and to attain longer-term productive capacity through the
There are some significant differences in water man- maintenance of core breeding stock. Policy instruments
agement policy generally and in drought management policy included rebates or subsidies on the transport of stock and
in particular. While the political, legal, and administrative fodder, low interest loans and interest rate subsidies. In
systems of both countries are influenced by the activities Australia, the cost, effectiveness, and adverse adjustment
of a plurality of interest groups, that influence is rather implications of existing policies were the main impetus for
more pronounced in the U.S. A further difference is the change, along with public concerns about the environment
relatively heavy litigious character of that activity in the U.S. and equity issues in applying subsidies. The Commonwealth
These differences in relation to approaches to drought Government appointed a Drought Policy Review Task
management are intensified by the different patterns in Force to undertake a comprehensive review of drought
population distribution and water use between the two policy in 1989 following the decision to withdraw drought
countries. Whereas in Australia, for instance, drought from the National Disaster Relief Arrangements (National
management is largely a matter determined by the inter- Drought Policy, 1990). Its report provided the basis for
action of agricultural interests, the civil service, and the development of a National Drought Policy (NDP) by the
political system generally, the situation in the U.S. is a Commonwealth and State governments in 1992.
rather more complex one in which a variety of interest
The objectives of the NDP are to encourage primary
groups and the courts are more heavily involved. In an producers and other sections of rural Australia to be self-
attempt to minimize the cost and political risks associated reliant in managing for climate variability and to maintain
with litigious activity, emphasis has been increasingly placed and protect Australia’s agricultural and environmental re-
on community consultation mechanisms in the U.S. than is source base during periods of extreme climate stress
generally present in Australia, where outcomes have con- (White and Karssies, 1999). Key policy measures under-
tinued to be more of an “administered” nature.
pinning these objectives include increased funding for
Nevertheless, there has been a growing recognition drought research and development; inclusion of drought
throughout the Australian community that water is a scarce risk management components within the whole on-farm
resource that needs to be managed effectively if commu- Property Management Planning training element of the
nity benefits from its use are to be maximized. This has National Landcare Program; grants for training and pro-
come at a time when there is a greater degree of environ- fessional advice which together are designed to develop
mental interest group activity and when uses other than farmers’ capacity to better manage risk, including drought
for agriculture have been of growing importance. Compe- risk; savings incentives provided through the tax system
tition for scarce water resources between agriculture and to encourage the build up of reserve funds for situations
the mining sector, though not a major issue nationally, has such as drought; accelerated taxation depreciation for fod-
been an issue in some areas. The inappropriate use of der and grain storage; interest rate subsidies (now being
water resources by the agricultural sector, including in times phased out) on debt during declared Drought Exceptional
of drought, has also become increasingly apparent, high- Circumstances for those farmers who could demonstrate
lighting the need for a greater degree of community in- long term prospects for viability; and income support to
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

352
D.H. White, D. A. Wilhite, B. O’Meagher, and G. L. Hammer
eligible farmers (subject to income and asset tests) for drought. The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI;
any farmer whose operations are located in areas desig- McKee et al., 1993) is gaining favor but is normally used
nated as experiencing Drought Exceptional Circumstances in conjunction with other indices, including the Palmer
(White et al., 1998).
(Palmer, 1965). The SPI was developed to give a better
Research has a major role in the implementation of representation of abnormal wetness and dryness than the
the NDP and in improving the level of self-reliance and Palmer indices, but because of data limitations, SPIs with
risk management skills of rural producers. Products in- time scales longer than 24 months may be unreliable
clude improved seasonal forecasts; on-line access to cli- (Guttman, 1999). Overall, because the water requirements
mate information; decision support systems for analyzing of urban populations inevitably dominate much of the de-
climate data or using agronomic, livestock nutrition, and bate on drought policy in the U.S., hydrological drought
financial models to aid decision making on the farm; the over much of the country is of increasing concern because
breeding and management of drought-tolerant crops and of its impacts on surface and subsurface water supplies.
pastures; and the use of remote sensing data, models, and
The contributions of Wilhite (1993, 1997b) have had a
geographic information systems to monitor and assess, both dramatic impact in stimulating discussions on the need for
spatially and temporally, the extent and severity of drought drought policies and plans in the U.S. and many other coun-
(Hall et al., 1997; White and Karssies, 1999). The use and tries. These contributions, particularly the ten-step drought
value of some of these technologies in minimizing land planning process (Wilhite 1991; Wilhite et al., 2000), have
degradation and identifying sustainable, yet financially vi- greatly influenced the development of drought plans at the
able, agricultural systems (e.g. McKeon and White, 1992; state level in the United States. The number of states with
Hammer et al., 1996) requires even greater emphasis if drought plans has increased from three in 1982 to 30 in
the second aim of the NDP is to be properly addressed. 2000, with several states currently developing drought
This also requires better linkages with other policies em- plans.
phasizing the sustainable development and use of the
country’s natural resources.
Current Drought Policy Efforts in Australia
A recent review has reaffirmed the aims and commit-
Evolution of Drought and Related Policies
ment of the Commonwealth, State, and Territory govern-
in the U.S.A.
ments to the NDP. There was agreement on encouraging
In the United States, the federal government became farmers to further increase the level of self-reliance and
the principal player in the provision of drought relief dur- profitability of their businesses, while also ensuring that
ing the 1930s in response to a drought that was nearly the environment is protected. However, political pressures
nationwide in extent and coexisted with severe economic have led to a relaxation of criteria for the provision of
conditions. Before the 1930s, assistance had been pro- financial support from the commonwealth government,
vided primarily by the private sector but the level of assis- despite some AU$698 million ($370 million US) having
tance required during the 1930s “dust bowl” event far already been invested by the commonwealth in Excep-
exceeded the response capacity of this sector. The fed- tional Circumstances (EC) Assistance since 1992.
eral government has continued to be the principal provider
New EC declaration procedures are in place. The cri-
of drought assistance during subsequent drought events. teria include a rare and severe event, the effects of which
Until recently, state governments assumed a relatively must result in a severe downturn in farm income over a
passive role in drought management. States are now as- prolonged period. Furthermore the event must not be pre-
suming a greater responsibility for drought planning, but dictable or part of a process of structural adjustment. A
drought relief remains largely a federal responsibility.
rare event is still one that occurs on average once in every
Although federal drought assistance programs in re- 20 to 25 years. It is considered severe if it lasts for a
cent decades have been directed increasingly toward prolonged period and is of sufficient scale to warrant gov-
short-term, emergency assistance programs, earlier re- ernment involvement as measured by assessing the im-
sponse efforts were characterized by a combination of pact on the sector, number of producers, size of area, and
both short- and long-term assistance programs. The funds overall value of production. Considerable difficulties are
allocated by Congress in response to droughts in recent already being encountered, as O’Meagher et al. (1998)
decades can best be categorized as post-impact govern- anticipated, in ensuring that such a multi-criteria approach
ment interventions that did little, if anything, to reduce the remains objective and that government interventions are
nation’s underlying vulnerability to drought.
rare events indeed. Each year comprises a unique combi-
Agricultural interest in drought is important in much of nation of events, so that such combinations are difficult to
rural U.S., particularly in areas such as the southwest and place in historical context. The coarse spatial resolution
throughout the Great Plains where variability in annual and limited duration of available data on farm incomes are
rainfall is high. There is, therefore, considerable interest in also inadequate for an income-based approach to EC de-
indices that monitor agricultural drought and hydrological termination.
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science in Australia and the U.S.A.
353
Not surprisingly, a large number of applications for
financial strategies into drought preparedness plans;
EC, each emphasizing combinations of exceptional fac-
tors leading to a severe downturn in farm income, are cur-
rently being received. If the process of declaring EC is
based on rare combinations of events, then it becomes
very difficult to constrain government financial support to
the rural sector, so that agriculture effectively becomes
significantly subsidized and the process of long-term struc-
•
•
Maintain a safety net of emergency relief that empha-
sizes sound stewardship of natural resources and self-
help; and
Coordinate drought programs and response effectively,
efficiently, and in a customer-oriented manner.
The report also called for the creation of a more per-
tural adjustment unduly impeded. This is not in the inter- manent national drought council to carry out the NDPC’s
ests of developing and sustaining a viable and healthy rural recommendations. Following the submission of this report
sector within the Australian economy.
to Congress in 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture created
an interim National Drought Council to begin to address
these recommendations. Congress will likely consider es-
tablishment of a more permanent council in 2001 or 2002.
Current Drought Policy Efforts in the U.S.A.
As a result of the 1996 drought and its effects in the
Southwest and southern Great Plains regions, a series of
policy initiatives was developed to improve federal and
state drought management efforts. One of the most sig-
Key Challenges and Policy Considerations
For both countries, the key challenge is to continue
nificant of these policy initiatives was the introduction in the process of developing policy responses to drought, land,
1997 of the National Drought Policy Act in the U.S. Sen- and water management that will foster appropriate changes
ate in January. Both the Federal Emergency Management to attitudes and behaviors on the part of users and political
Agency (FEMA) and the Western Governors Association decision makers. The latter is critically important since
drought task force recommended the development of a inappropriate signals from political leaders are likely to
comprehensive, integrated national drought policy to re- reinforce the view that water remains a semi-free good
duce the risks associated with future drought events and and that governments will continue to come to the rescue
improve emergency response to drought catastrophies of those in trouble, especially farmers, but also other wa-
when they occur. The introduction of this bill in the Senate ter users. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the solution
led to a lengthy discussion but support for the bill was bi- to the problems of drought is acceptance by those living in
partisan since it was aimed at improving the efficiency of climate-sensitive sectors that climate variability is an inte-
government. This bill was passed by the Senate in No- gral part of their environment and one that they must plan
vember 1997; a modified bill was passed by the U.S. House for, adapt to, and manage as responsible stewards of their
of Representatives in July 1998. President Clinton signed land.
this bill into law on July 16, 1998.
Ongoing research that helps to deepen our understand-
The major tenet of this bill was the establishment of ing of climate variability will be critical to meeting this
an advisory commission (National Drought Policy Com- challenge. The outcome of such research not only informs
mission/NDPC) to provide advice and recommendations policy development, but also provides the basis for inform-
on the creation of an integrated, coordinated federal policy ing the community of the impacts of our individual and
designed to prepare for, mitigate the impacts of, respond collective attitudes and behaviors.
to, and recover from serious drought emergencies.
Such research will probably need to maintain the em-
The NDPC, under the leadership of the U.S. Depart- phasis on improving our understanding of both regional
ment of Agriculture, submitted its recommendations of and global climate systems and of the interactions between
drought policy needs to the U.S. Congress and the Presi- and implications of our land and water use and manage-
dent in May 2000. Its recommendations, broadly stated, ment activities. This is perhaps particularly important in
were to:
the case of Australia because of the sharper natural limits
on food and fiber productivity combined with economic
•
•
•
Incorporate planning, implementation of plans and pro- and international pressures on population growth.
active mitigation measures, risk management, resource It is unlikely that such efforts alone will result in the
stewardship, environment considerations, and public kind of attitudinal and behavioral changes required to yield
education as the key elements of effective national improved drought management and economic and natural
drought policy;
resource sustainability. Governments in both countries
Improve collaboration between scientists and manag- stress the importance of greater self-reliance and improved
ers to enhance the effectiveness of observation net- water and land management on the part of farmers and
works, monitoring, prediction, information delivery, and industrial users. To achieve this, it will be necessary for
applied research and to foster public understanding of governments to assist in the dissemination of information
and preparedness for drought; and techniques, while avoiding the spread of counterpro-
Develop and incorporate comprehensive insurance and ductive messages through inappropriate policy interven-
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

354
D.H. White, D. A. Wilhite, B. O’Meagher, and G. L. Hammer
tions. Governments should also facilitate a range of sup- recent years. For example, discussions related to the de-
portive policies fostering appropriate action on the part of velopment of a national drought policy were considered
water users and land managers. This raises the issue of by the National Drought Policy Commission. A national,
how to introduce and maintain such policy initiatives with- integrated climate monitoring system is evolving under the
out inciting a rural backlash that negates all progress to date. leadership of the NDMC, U.S. Department of Agricul-
Possible initiatives are reviewed by O’Meagher et al. ture, and the Climate Prediction Center/NOAA. A joint
(1999) for Australia and by Wilhite (1997a; 2001) for the drought monitoring facility was established in 1999 and
United States. One area that requires further development has developed a suite of new products to help in monitor-
is the role of private sector instruments/initiatives in sup- ing the complex and evolving patterns of drought. A new
porting public sector activities. With much improved data map, the “Drought Monitor,” which integrates many indi-
fields in the area of climate variability, there is much greater ces and variables in assessing and classifying drought se-
scope for private insurance sector involvement in insuring verity, was developed. The newly developed Standardized
for drought. While the United States is further along in Precipitation Index is included in this analysis and is also
this regard than Australia (through, for example, a variety being used by a growing number of states in detecting and
of private sector crop insurance arrangements), there is tracking emerging drought areas. Post-drought audits of
scope for further development in both countries, resulting federal and state drought response and mitigation efforts
not only in less pressure on government purses but in re- need to be routinely conducted to determine successes
ducing the pressures currently flowing from the electoral and failures. All states should be encouraged through the
cycles in both countries.
provision of incentives to develop comprehensive drought
That notwithstanding, there have been some consid- mitigation plans. Most of the 30 states with drought plans
erable improvements in our collective understanding of the focus largely on response. Methodologies are now avail-
dynamics between climate variability and both public and able for states to follow in placing emphasis on mitigation
private land and water management practices; the evi- actions and programs. Examples from states that have
dence points to both countries being some distance from emphasized mitigation (e.g., Utah, New Mexico, and Ne-
long-term sustainability, particularly when seen against the braska) should further facilitate this process. The lack of
increased pressures which are likely to placed on the re- methodologies and models has been one of the constraints
sources involved. To secure the necessary commitment to to the adoption of an approach to drought management
ongoing learning and change required, greater attention that emphasizes mitigation.
may need to be paid to improving methods of involving
relevant stakeholders.
While, as previously noted, there has been some soft-
ening of the essentially science-based approach to trig-
gering drought support mechanisms in Australia, the broad
objectives of policy remain consistent with the original
national drought policy framework adopted over a decade
Future Directions and Challenges
A review of drought management and policy needs ago. The decision in 1994 to move to a frequency-based
for the western United States was recently completed by trigger for such support has had the positive effect of fo-
Wilhite (1997a; 1997b) at the request of the Western Wa- cussing the attention of many, if not all, farmers on the
ter Policy Review Advisory Commission. In this report, reality of variability and on the need for appropriate pre-
Wilhite reviewed major studies that evaluated the role of paredness strategies.
federal and state governments in drought management and
Event-related triggers such as the support trigger used
offered recommendations to improve future management in Australia may also have relevance both for triggering
efforts. These studies were reviewed to identify common support and for water management decision-making in the
themes that might help highlight future needs or actions United States. The decision to impose water use restric-
that the federal government could take to improve drought tions in many cities and catchment areas, for instance, is
management in the western United States. The common still driven by essentially political considerations. Never-
themes identified included:
theless, quite a few locations are now trying to take ad-
vantage of new triggers/indicators. For example, decisions
on water allocations during drought years for the states of
•
•
Create a national drought policy and plan;
Develop a comprehensive, integrated national climate Florida, Georgia, and Alabama will be based on various
monitoring system; time frames of the Standardized Precipitation Index and
Incorporate drought in the National Mitigation Strategy; other indicators in the future. Thus a move to a more sci-
Conduct post-drought audits of federal/state response ence-based decision-making approach is taking place.
•
•
efforts;
Establish regional drought forums; and
Encourage development of state drought mitigation plans. lessen interest group pressure and encourage decisions
more likely to facilitate short-term restriction decisions as
Progress on some of these themes has taken place in well as long-term sustainability.
While it is unlikely that political considerations can be elimi-
nated altogether, such an approach has the potential to
•
•
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science in Australia and the U.S.A.
355
Similarly, the various approaches to community involve- dination and cooperation, increased emphasis on mitiga-
ment in drought risk management adopted in some states tion and preparedness, and building non-federal/federal
of the U.S. offer a useful model as the debate about water partnerships” have become commonplace. Existing insti-
use, particularly during drought episodes, becomes more tutional inertia of federal emergency response programs
intense in Australia (see, for example, Bidol-Pavda, 1998). and the expectations of the recipients of assistance pro-
The processes suggested by the National Drought Mitiga- grams, however, encourage drought management to re-
tion Center at the University of Nebraska for the various main in a reactive, crisis management mode.
phases of the drought cycle (contingency/preparedness
Nevertheless, the mentality of most state and federal
planning, pre-impact planning, and post-impact interven- government agencies remains response oriented. It is not
tion; Wilhite, 1991; Wilhite et al., 2000), for example, could yet apparent whether federal and state policy makers
provide a useful framework within which to consider stake- clearly understand the scope of the changes that will be
holder involvement in Australia.
required to invoke the new paradigm of risk management.
To be fully effective in achieving the goal of better When drought occurs, especially in election years, drought
water use and drought management, such a framework relief is one method that members of Congress use to send
requires a greater degree of interaction between expert money home to their constituents. The true test of whether
and community opinion than has been the case in either we are making progress will be if Congress and the ad-
country. New processes need to be developed that enable ministration enthusiastically embrace the recommendations
the realities of the meteorological cycle to be more effec- of the National Drought Policy Commission and other
tively integrated into the essentially political process of groups, provide adequate funding to support commission
interest group accommodation. One particularly useful tool goals and recommendations, and direct federal agencies
that could be more extensively utilized for this purpose is to modify existing policies and programs to emphasize miti-
the “policy gaming” approach being used by the RAND gation and preparedness, thus effectively shifting funding
Corporation in the design of appropriate responses to a from crisis to risk management and implementing the new
range of social policy issues in the U.S. and elsewhere paradigm.
(Kahan et al., 1995).
Only time will determine the dedication of the United
States to this new approach to drought management. A
continuation of widespread, severe drought in the next few
years would certainly engender greater support for this
Conclusions
These policies have implications for the behavior of new paradigm and help the country continue down the
rural and urban communities. Policy makers in both coun- path to risk management. The political will to change the
tries could learn from each other and further improve their way the Unites States manages drought appears to be
policy approaches. This requires farmers to consider the genuine but may evaporate quickly if the country experi-
likely occurrence of drought in their long-term planning, ences a series of wet years. Changing the momentum of
with emphasis on risk management and increased self- the past will be difficult, but it is critical for the scientific
reliance.
community and the public to hold policymakers to this com-
Science has played a key role in developing the new mitment.
risk management approach to coping with drought. It has
an essential role in underpinning the development and
implementation of policy (O’Meagher et al., 1998) which
can only increase as the benefits of accessing and using
relevant information become more widely recognized.
Although state and federal attention on improving
drought management in the United States has been copi-
ous in recent years, including the National Drought Policy
Act of 1998, little change in practice is visible to date,
especially at the federal level. Federal response to drought
conditions in 1999 and 2000 was reactive and short term
in scope; in other words, business as usual. To fill the
vacuum, states have continued to be the most progressive
actors in drought management, a trend that began in the
early- to mid-1980s. Regardless of progress by states,
improved drought management requires an integrated ap-
proach between and within levels of government.
About the Authors
Dr. David White is the Direc-
tor of ASIT Consulting in Canberra,
Australia. He was formerly a Senior
Principal Research Scientist in what
is now the Bureau of Rural Sciences
and scientific adviser to policy mak-
ers on climate variability and the pro-
ductivity, sustainability, and financial
viability of agricultural systems,
drought assessment, and risk management. He now pro-
vides consultancy and analytical services addressing a
wide range of agricultural and environmental issues. Dr.
White’s mailing address is P.O. Box 328, Hawker, ACT,
Australia 2614. Email: david_white@ acslink.net.au; http:/
/www.acslink.aone.net.au/asit.
Federal agencies are now speaking the new language
of drought management, and phrases like “improved coor-
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

356
D.H. White, D. A. Wilhite, B. O’Meagher, and G. L. Hammer
Dr. Donald A. Wilhite is the Water Resources Association 35, No. 2: 311–322.
Director of the National Drought Hall,W.,K.Day,J.Carter,C.PaullandD.Bruget.1997.“Assess-
Mitigation Center and International
Drought Information Center and a
Professor at the University of Ne-
braska-Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. His
ment of Australia’s Grasslands and Rangelands by Spatial
Simulation.” Proceedings of MODSIM 97, the International
Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Hobart, Tasmania,
8-11 December 1997: 1736–1741.
research interests include drought Hammer, G.L., D.P. Holzworth, and R. Stone. 1996. “The Value of
management and preparedness, the
policy implications of climate variabil-
ity and climate change, and the effects of climate on soci-
Skill in Seasonal Climate Forecasting to Wheat Crop Man-
agement in a Region with High Climatic Variability.” Austra-
lian Journal of Agricultural Research 47: 717–737.
ety. Email: dwilhite@enso.unl.edu; http://enso.unl.edu/ Hansler, G.M. 1991. “Drought Planning and Response Experi-
ndmc/.
ence in the Delaware River Basin.” In Drought Management
and Planning. D.A. Wilhite and D.A. Wood, eds. The Inter-
national Drought Information Center, Department of Agri-
cultural Meteorology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Nebraska, USA: 179–183.
Mr. Bruce O’Meagher is a
senior policy adviser within the Aus-
tralian Public Service, based in
Canberra. He has worked in the
Australian Treasury, the Department Heathcote, R.L. 1999. “She’ll be Right Mate. Coping with
of Primary Industries and Energy, the
Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet and the Department of
Industry, Science and Resources
Drought: Strategies Old and New in Australia.” Hazards and
Disasters: A Series of Definitive Works: Volume II: Drought,
A Global Assessment. D.A. Wilhite, ed. London, UnitedKing-
dom: Routledge Publishers: 59–69.
(DISR). He is currently head of DISR’s Industry Policy Kahan, J.P., C.P. Rydell, and J. Setear. 1995. “A Game of Urban
Branch. Email: bruce.o’meagher@isr.gov.au; http://
www.isr.gov.au/.
Drug Policy, Peace and Conflict.” Journal of Peace Psychol-
ogy 1, No. 3: 275–290.
Dr. Graeme L. Hammer is co- McKee, T.B., N.J. Doesken, and J. Kleist. 1993. “The Relation-
leader of the Agricultural Production
Systems Research Unit (APSRU),
which includes a staff of about 50
scientists and support personnel from
ship of Drought Frequency and Duration to Time Scales.”
th
Proceedings of the 8 Conference on Applied Climatology.
American Meteorological Society, 17-22 January, Anaheim,
California, USA: 179–184.
the Queensland Departments of Pri- McKeon, G.M. and D.H. White. 1992. “El Niño and Better Land
mary Industries and Natural Re- Management.” Search 23: 197–200.
sources and the CSIRO Division of McMahon, T.A., B.L. Finlayson, A.T. Haines, and R. Srikanthan.
Sustainable Ecosystems. APSRU is
principally concerned with improving the profitability and
sustainability of dryland farming systems in the Australian
1992. Global Runoff - Continental Comparisons of Annual
Flows and Peak Discharges. Cremlingen-Destedt, Germany:
Carena.
subtropics. Email: hammerg@dpi.qld.gov.au; http:// Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. 1990. Natural Re-
www.apsru.gov.au/..
sources Management Strategy. Canberra, Australia: Murray-
Darling Basin Commission.
Discussion opens until March 1, 2002.
National Drought Policy Final Report. 1990. Drought Policy
Review Task Force. Canberra, Australia: Australian Govern-
ment Publishing Service.
Disclaimer
O’Meagher, B., L. du Pisani, and D.H. White. 1998. “Evolution
of Drought Policy and Related Science in Australia and South
Africa.” Agricultural Systems 57: 231–258.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Australian Government.
O’Meagher, B., M. Stafford Smith, and D.H. White. 1999. “Ap-
proaches to Integrated Drought Risk Management:
Australia’s National Drought Policy.” Hazards and Disas-
ters: A Series of Definitive Works. Volume II: Drought, A
Global Assessment. D.A. Wilhite, ed. London, United King-
dom: Routledge Publishers: 115–128.
References
Annual Irrigation Survey Continues Steady Growth. 2000. Irri-
gation Journal 51, January/February: 12.
Bidol-Pavda, P. 1998. “Involving Stakeholders in Public Sector
Planning Processes.” Paper presented to workshop on Plan-
ning for the Next Drought. Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, USA.
Palmer, W.C. 1965. “Meteorological Drought.” United States
WeatherBureauResearchPaperNo.45.
Gleick, P.H., ed. 1993. Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Ripley,E.A.1992.“WaterFlow.”In Ecosystems of the World 8A:
FreshwaterResources. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guttman, N.B. 1999. “Accepting the Standardized Precipitation
Index: A Calculation Algorithm.” Journal of the American
Natural Grasslands, Introduction and Western Hemisphere.
R.T. Coupland, ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
55–73.
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001

Highlights of Drought Policy and Related Science in Australia and the U.S.A.
357
Smith, D.I. 1998. Water in Australia. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
ies. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers: 87–108.
TheMacquarieWorldAtlas.1994.MacquarieLibrary,Macquarie
University,NSW,Australia.
Wilhite,D.A.1997a.“RespondingtoDrought:CommonThreads
from the Past, Visions for the Future.” Journal of the Ameri-
can Water Resources Association 33: 951–959.
Wilhite, D.A. 1997b. “Improving Drought Management in the
West.” Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advi-
sory Commission.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. Estimated Water Use in the U.S.
in 1990.Circular1081.Washington,DC,USA:U.S.Geologi-
cal Survey.
White, D.H. and L. Karssies. 1999. “Australia’s National Drought
Policy: Aims, Analyses and Implementation.” Water Inter- Wilhite,D.A.,M.J.Hayes,C.Knutson,andK.Smith.2000.“Plan-
national 24, No. 1: 2–9.
ning for Drought: Moving from Crisis to Risk Management.”
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36,
No. 4: 697–710.
White, D.H., S.M. Howden, J.J. Walcott, and R.M. Cannon. 1998.
“A Framework for Estimating the Extent and Severity of
Drought, Based on a Grazing System in Southeastern Aus-
tralia.” Agricultural Systems 57: 259–270.
Wilhite, D.A., ed. 1999. “Drought: A Global Assessment (Vol-
umes 1 and 2).” London, England, United Kingdom: Routledge
Publishers.
Wilhite,D.A.1986.“DroughtPolicyintheU.S.andAustralia:A
Comparative Analysis.” Water Resources Bulletin 22: 425–438. Wilhite, D.A. 2001. “MovingfromCrisistoRiskManagement.”
Wilhite,D.A.1991.“DroughtPlanning:AProcessforStateGov-
ernment.” Water Resources Bulletin 271: 29–38.
Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 16, No.1:
20–28.
Wilhite, D.A., ed. 1993. “Planning for Drought.” Drought As-
sessment, Management and Planning: Theory and Case Stud-
IWRA, Water International, Volume 26, Number 3, September 2001