Droughts are occurring globally and should be recognized as a global issue and drought planning should use a proactive approach on the part of the world community. However, much drought planning, even in developed and highly developed countries, is reactive and programs are often poorly coordinated sometimes with unforeseen negative consequences for marginalized and disenfranchised populations. Literature pertaining to planning strategy for existing, drought crises is nominal and often contributes to patterns of reactiveness and resulting inequity. To gain a better understanding of crisis-driven planning and the participatory process, this gap was viewed through the lenses of institutional analysis and development and procedural justice and fairness. Specifically, this study was designed to determine how procedural justice and fairness, and the institutional analysis and development framework delineates participatory roles during reactive, crisis-driven planning versus proactive, preparedness planning. A multi-case/within-case analysis was conducted. Six publicly-available documents were selected using provisional and sequence coding lists; emerging themes were also identified at this time. The within-case analysis showed discernable differences between reactive and proactive participatory processes. These findings were used to conduct a cross-case analysis; this analysis indicated that commitment to the participatory process and to change were the keys elements in producing fair and just policies. Drought events can be widely divergent and dynamic, no two being alike; however, the spirit of procedural justice must be part of governance that brings public participation within the reactive planning process into better alignment with proactive planning.