Laserfiche WebLink
<br />," .' , . : ~ <br /> <br />332897 <br /> <br />it was apparent that as impact problems and local needs become more <br />serious, the need for better management and integration of effort also <br />intensifies. <br /> <br />Systemic Needs. In developing a dr0ught response plan, it was <br />necessary to design a system that would avoid past problem areas, re- <br />flect needs that were pertinent to contemporary and future conditions, <br />and would provide effective management of drought response over the long <br />run. This system should not only incorporate past lessons learned and <br />have the capability to take definitive action, but it should also be <br />flexible enough to quickly make adjustments to new or unexpected impacts. <br />This system should be able to cope with either worsening conditions facing <br />an unware publ ic or intense pressures emerging from a public sense of <br />urgency or frustration. Finally, the system must have a capabll ity to <br />mobilize actions and resources energetically or to merely monitor changing <br />conditions. The system as set down in a drought response plan should be <br />capable of changing its character as water shortage conditions improve or <br />worsen. <br /> <br />Gubernatorial Requirements. In February 1981, Governor Lamm took <br />action to initiate the process of deal ing with a potential drought situation <br />which was again developing. He also initiated a planning process in State <br />government to develop means to deal over the long run with water shortage <br />conditions. His memorandum of February 5 stated in part: <br /> <br />"If a drought emergency develops, the State (and federal) response <br />will be coordinated by the Division of Disaster Emergency Services, <br />just as other emergency situations are managed. I am making <br />George Lamb available to DODES as a consultant, project leader, <br />and my personal representative to accomplish within 90 days the <br />following tasks: <br /> <br />1) Develop and activate a data collection and assessment <br />system which will identify the potential impacts of a <br />drought and track their occurence and intensity. At <br />some point, this assessment process may result in a <br />recommendation that a drought emergency be proclaimed. <br /> <br />2) Develop and have in place by the end of the period a <br />drought emergency response plan which would be activiated <br />by a drought emergency decision. This task includes cata- <br />loguing existing State and Federal response and relief <br />programs and authorities, and development of recommendations <br />to meet additional needs which are identified." <br /> <br />DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE DROUGHT RESPONSE PLAN <br /> <br />In order to develop a drought plan responsive to Gubernatorial require- <br />ments, the current configuration and capabil ities of State government and <br />the systemic characteristics needed in past drought experiences, <br />two separate elements have been established. These two elements - an <br />assessment system and a response system - are managed by State government <br />but they also involve other pub! Ic and private elements. Both systems <br />have been derived from and remain subordinate to State government although <br />they depend on a variety of data from many sources for assessment, and <br />they manage responses of a variety of agencies and organizations. The <br /> <br />A-2 <br />