BOARD01239 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. BACKGROUND . Drought is perhaps the most obstinate and pernicious ofthe dramatic events that Nature conjures up. It lasts longer and usually extends across larger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes. At its most severe, drought creates vast, windblown dust bowls, eroding the land, devastating terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat, contributing to widespread wildfire, costing billions of dollars, and dashing innumerable hopes and dreams. For drought-stricken southwestern Texas, low water levels in reservoirs of the Rio Grande watershed had economic consequences that totaled $77 million aild 4,500 lost jobs in 1998, according to a Texas A&M study. PLACEHOLDER-NEED MORE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES FROM WESTERN GOVERNOR'S REPORT AND OTHER PERTINENT SOURCES Congress passed and the President signed the National Drought Policy Act in 1998 after determining that this country often suffers serious economic and environmental losses from severe regional droughts, The Act stated that there is no coordinated federal strategy to respond to such emergencies and that at the federal level, drought is addressed primarily through special legislation and ad hoc action rather than through a systematic process similar to those for other natural disasters. The Act acknowledged the growing need to emphasize drought planning, measures to reduce the impacts of drought, and risk management rather than crisis management. It also recognized existing federal programs devoted to drought prediction, forecasting, monitoring, planning, and technical and financial assistance. The Act noted, however, that there is no single federal agency in a lead or coordinating role regarding drought and that state, local, and tribal governments must deal individually and separately with each federal agency involved in drought . assistance. In view ofthese considerations, the law created the National Drought Policy Commission and challenged the Commission to lay the basis for national drought policy. Specifically, the Act required us to determine what needs exist on the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to prepare for and respond to drought emergencies; review all existing federal laws and programs and pertinent state, local, and tribal laws and programs relating to drought; and determine what differences exist between the needs of those affected by drought and federal laws and programs designed to lessen the impacts of and respond to drought. We were also directed to assess regional drought initiatives and consider whether they can be applied at the national level. The Act required us to make three recommendations. First, we were to recommend how federal drought laws and programs can be better integrated with ongoing state, local, and tribal programs into a comprehensive national policy to reduce the impacts of and respond to drought emergencies while respecting state water rights and considering the need to protect the environment. Second, we were to recommend ways to improve the public's awareness of the need to reduce the impacts of drought and strategies for developing a coordinated approach to drought planning, impact-reduction measures, and response by governmental and nongovernmental . entities. Finally, we were to recommend whether all federal drought preparation and response programs should be consolidated under one existing federal agency and, if so, to name that agency. . ! ,1