Drought Monitor

Drought Monitor
Name	Drought Monitor
Formed	1999
Jurisdiction	United States
Headquarters	Lincoln, Nebraska
Parent agency	National Drought Mitigation Center

Drought Monitor

The Drought Monitor is a collaborative weekly mapping and reporting product that depicts drought conditions across the United States and territories, informing policy responses and resource allocation. It is produced by a partnership among the National Drought Mitigation Center, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and is used by agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the United States Congress for disaster declarations and relief planning. The product integrates inputs from federal agencies, academic institutions, state climatologists, and regional experts to provide consistent situational awareness for stakeholders including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and agricultural interests represented by the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Overview

The Drought Monitor provides a national map updated weekly that classifies drought severity across counties and regions, intended for decision-makers in entities like the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of the Interior, and state-level bodies such as the California Department of Water Resources. Originating from cooperative efforts among the National Drought Mitigation Center, the Climate Prediction Center, and the United States Department of Agriculture in 1999, the product synthesizes inputs from academic centers like the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the Cornell University Cooperative Extension, as well as state climatologists in networks associated with the American Association of State Climatologists. Users include water managers in the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, agricultural lenders such as the Farm Credit System, and humanitarian organizations including the American Red Cross.

Methodology

Analysts produce the weekly map through expert consensus, combining quantitative indicators with qualitative local reports from entities like the National Weather Service offices, the State Climatologist offices, and regional extension services tied to land-grant universities such as Iowa State University and Texas A&M University. The methodology incorporates drought indices like the Palmer Drought Severity Index, the Standardized Precipitation Index, and hydrological measures used by the United States Geological Survey, together with soil moisture estimates from models developed at institutions like the Princeton University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The process involves coordination with federal agencies including the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Bureau of Land Management, and is guided by protocols influenced by documents from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and workshops convened by organizations such as the American Meteorological Society.

Classification and Categories

The Monitor uses a five-category classification scheme—ranging from abnormally dry to exceptional drought—mirroring taxonomies familiar to practitioners at the United States Drought Monitor partner agencies, and correspondingly used in statutes and programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Categories are linked to triggers for assistance in legislation overseen by members of the United States Congress and implemented by agencies such as the Farm Service Agency and state emergency management agencies like the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services. The classification aligns with historic event designations used in analyses at the National Climatic Data Center and in retrospective studies by scholars at the University of Washington and the Colorado State University.

Data Sources and Tools

Inputs include observational networks like the Cooperative Observer Program (COOP), radar and satellite systems operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and streamflow records from the United States Geological Survey. Remote sensing products from platforms including Landsat, MODIS, and the Suomi NPP satellite inform vegetation and evapotranspiration assessments, while climate reanalyses from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts and model outputs from the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction contribute to longer-term context. Analytical tools and visualization systems rely on software and standards developed at research centers such as the University of Arizona's climatology labs, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, and open-data initiatives associated with the Open Geospatial Consortium.

Applications and Uses

Decision-makers in water resource agencies like the Central Arizona Project and the Bureau of Reclamation use the Monitor for reservoir operations and irrigation planning, while agricultural stakeholders including the American Soybean Association and commodity insurers reference it for crop loss assessments and indemnity programs administered through the Risk Management Agency. Public health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and municipal utilities in cities like Phoenix, Arizona and Los Angeles use the product for drought preparedness and sanitation planning. The Monitor supports research in universities including University of California, Davis and Colorado State University on topics ranging from hydrology to socioeconomics, and underpins funding decisions by foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation when humanitarian drought risk is evaluated.

Criticisms and Limitations

Critics from academic and practitioner communities, including researchers at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, note that the Monitor's reliance on county-scale mapping can mask fine-scale variability relevant to tribal nations like the Navajo Nation and resource managers in the Mississippi Delta. The expert-driven consensus approach is criticized by some analysts at institutions such as the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory for its subjective elements and for lagging in incorporation of high-resolution soil moisture from new satellites like SMAP. Policy analysts in think tanks such as the Brookings Institution and the Resources for the Future highlight challenges when legal eligibility thresholds for programs administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency hinge on map delineations rather than continuous metrics.

Regional and National Implementations

The original U.S. product has inspired analogous efforts internationally and regionally, including national drought monitoring systems maintained by agencies such as the European Drought Observatory, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and the India Meteorological Department, and regional initiatives under the World Meteorological Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization. State-level implementations adapt the methodology in jurisdictions like California, Texas, and Nebraska in partnership with land-grant universities and state climatology offices, while transboundary river basin commissions such as the International Joint Commission and the Colorado River Compact stakeholders incorporate Monitor outputs into planning dialogues.

Category:Drought