In this Section:

	Background
	Project Overview
	Project Components:
	Physical Characteristics
	Social Vulnerability
	Impacts
	Monitoring
	References
	Related Links
	Contacts

Colorado River near Lake Powell in March 2002 (top) and March 2003 (bottom).
Credit: John Dohrenwend

Research and Products:
Drought Planning and Mitigation

Social Vulnerability

Overview | Research Methods | Results

Overview

Credit: Colorado Drought Mitigation and Response Plan

Figure 5. Example of Colorado’s Drought Plan: Drought Implementation Cycle. [more details]

This aspect of the CLIMAS drought research effort examines how non-climatic factors affect societal vulnerability to drought, and which mitigation approaches can help reduce drought vulnerability in Arizona. Four projects, described below, assess drought hazard planning in municipalities, community vulnerability to drought, potential drought mitigation strategies, and impediments to implementing the Arizona Drought Preparedness Plan.
The first project assesses societal vulnerability to drought using a hazard assessment approach. Societal response to drought has typically been reactionary, incomplete, and costly. Increasingly, however, communities, states, and even nations are drafting proactive mitigation plans to better deal with recurring natural hazards (Figure 5). This project takes a closer look at flood and other risk-reduction actions, and evaluates the extent to which these are applicable to drought risk mitigation at a municipal level. Ultimately, this project will suggest the most effective ways to incorporate drought alongside other hazards in county and municipal plans.
A second project addresses the concept of vulnerability to drought. Unlike past drought research, which has looked exclusively at the relationship between atmospheric patterns and water supply, vulnerability research examines how drought impacts result from interactions of social, political, and economic systems. This research will also identify societal buffering mechanisms that mitigate the effects of drought. The results of this research will inform local and state drought planning and the field of natural hazards planning.
A third project involves a comparative evaluation of drought mitigation strategies. Research results will summarize the feasibility, effectiveness, and longevity of recommended mitigation strategies. CLIMAS researchers are reviewing other states’ drought plans, which will provide a synopsis of mitigation opportunities and a theoretical framework of the social dimensions of drought. Through understanding the assumptions implicit in other drought plans, researchers believe that Arizona’s drought planners will better develop a plan that is responsive to both social and physical factors of drought.

Research Methods

A comprehensive review of current Arizona county and municipal planning documents was carried out to examine how various natural hazards have been incorporated into these plans. The hazard plans were analyzed for presence or absence of particular mitigation or response elements and ranked for the number of critical elements found in each plan that pertained to water shortage and drought. In addition, the content of these mitigation and response protocols was analyzed for various qualities that ensure risk reduction or provide measures recommended in various disaster relief acts.
In order to evaluate effective strategies for mitigating drought and reducing vulnerability, researchers conducted phone interviews with drought planners and resource managers in other states, and thoroughly reviewed states’ drought plans and archives. Integrating these qualitative methods with quantitative data and methods—such as spatial analysis using GIS (Geographic Information System) technology—will help researchers develop a more complete model of drought vulnerability and of how to evaluate and reduce it through effective mitigation options.

Results

Researchers have completed several products for the Governor's Drought Task Force. “A State Drought Plan Summary: A Review of Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Montana Drought Plans,” written in October 2003, summarizes the structure, implementation, and successes of other drought plans. Other products include “Drought Mitigation and Adaptation: Discussions with State Drought Planners,” and “A Study of Potential Difficulties in Implementing the Governor’s Drought Preparedness Plan in the Little Colorado River Basin, Arizona,” both reports to the Governor’s Drought Task Force.
These reports provide information relating to the key implications of implementing a drought plan and possible impediments to implementation. The report, “Drought Mitigation and Adaptation: Discussions with State Drought Planners,” makes three suggestions:

• A single point of contact for all activities related to drought and drought planning is critical, particularly during times when there is adequate precipitation.
• As many local stakeholders should be involved as possible, including irrigation districts, forestry groups, tourism operators, water capital project managers, fire managers, state agencies, realtors, developers, regional water planners, and city council staff.
• Drought advisory committees are critical for short-term mitigation; however, other states have found watershed alliances to be the most effective type of structure in linking the local and state scales of drought planning. These groups provide continuity in monitoring and preparedness during non-drought times, especially in vulnerable rural areas.

The report, “A Study of Potential Difficulties in Implementing the Governor’s Drought Preparedness Plan in the Little Colorado River Basin, Arizona,” delves into the possible impediments to implementing the drought plan. However, in spite of the barriers discussed in this report, the residents of the Upper Little Colorado River Basin (ULCRB) region possess extensive social capital, which would allow them to plan for and cope with drought. The barriers discussed in this report include:

• Resistance to drought planning due to the perception of an ample water supply from the C- and N- groundwater aquifers;
• Apprehension over pending adjudication involving water rights in the basin;
• Tensions between irrigators and recreators, summer residents and permanent residents, and Mormons and non-Mormons;
• Lack of funds to carry out drought planning and preparedness measures;
• Discouraged collaboration due to antipathy toward extensive bureaucratic “red tape.”

In 2005, the Arizona State Legislature approved funding for the Arizona Department of Water Resources to implement a statewide drought program.

The Arizona Department of Water Resources is implementing Local Area Impact Assessment Groups in Arizona’s 15 counties.