Drought Improvements (mostly) Not Warranted December 7, 2006
Drought Improvements (mostly) not warranted.doc
Drought Improvements (mostly) not warranted.pdf
By Mark Shafer, Director of Climate Information
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
NORMAN - The newest edition of the Drought Monitor shows significant improvements in drought conditions across Oklahoma. But sometimes pictures don't tell the whole story. While parts of northeastern and north central Oklahoma received more than a foot of snow, this doesn't translate into all that much water. Most areas outside of east central and southeast Oklahoma recorded less than two inches of precipitation from the winter storm. It is welcome moisture, without a doubt, but the nearly two years of drought preceding it means it will take many more events before we can feel comfortable about our water supplies again.
The Drought Monitor is a process that combines direct measurements with advice from local officials. October's rainfall across the southern half of Oklahoma and this most recent winter storm have resulted in near-normal to above-normal precipitation over the last 60 days in all but northwestern and north central Oklahoma. The drought indices used by the Drought Monitor, based on these measurements, suggest that drought conditions in these regions are not that severe.
The difficulty lies in the preceding two years of precipitation deficits. Because the deepest layers of the soil had been so dry for so long, the soil is acting like a dry sponge, absorbing any rainfall and snow melt. Consequently, most area lakes and rivers have shown little response to the recent events. Water supply woes continue, including threatened water supplies such as Lone Chimney Lake in Payne and Pawnee counties and low or entirely dry farm ponds. The exception has been in east central and southeastern Oklahoma, where lakes such as Hugo, Sardis, Wister and Tenkiller are now reported as full.
In most instances, on-the-ground reports help to convince the Drought Monitor authors that the measurements are not accurately reflecting impacts. Despite many attempts this week, the weight seems to be given to the measurements. Therefore, this week's Drought Monitor map should be used with caution. Staff at the Oklahoma Climatological Survey will continue to work with the Drought Monitor authors to get the product back-on-track in future weeks.
For Further Information:
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
http://climate.mesonet.org/rainfall_update.html
Army Corps of Engineers (lake levels)
http://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/
U.S. Drought Monitor
http://drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html
Oklahoma Mesonet (real-time weather information)
http://www.mesonet.org/
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (Oklahoma Water Resources Bulletin)
http://www.owrb.state.ok.us/supply/drought/drought_index.php
Figure 1: Oklahoma Mesonet precipitation reports Nov. 28 - Dec. 6, 2006

Figure 2: Snowfall totals, courtesy of the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Tulsa

Figure 3: The Oklahoma Water Resources Board's groundwater well at the Fittstown Mesonet site (Pontotoc County) has shown some recovery since October, but is still 18 feet below its May peak

Figure 4: Percentage of normal precipitation for the last 60 days (source: Oklahoma Mesonet)

Figure 5: Year-to-date departure from normal precipitation (source: Oklahoma Mesonet)

Figure 6: Drought Monitor, November 28, 2006

Figure 7: Drought Monitor, December 5, 2006

Media Contact:
Cerry Leffler
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 2900
Norman, OK 73072-7305
405-325-2541
405-325-2550 (fax)
cerry@ou.edu
For Additional Information:
Mark Shafer
Director of Climate Information
120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 2900
Norman, OK 73072-7305
405-325-2541
405-325-2550 (fax)
mshafer@ou.edu
|