For the first time in 25 years, California has a snowpack trifecta
The year may have started with a dry spell, but the end of California's storm season has brought more fresh snow to the Sierra Nevada, pushing the state's snowpack to 96% of average on April 1, when the snow season typically reaches its peak.
The near-average snowpack has given the state a third straight year of ample water supplies in the mountains — something that hasn't happened in a quarter of a century.
'Earlier on, there were some indicators that we might have a dry year, but fortunately, the storm windows have stayed open and given us a good boost in February and March to be where we are today,' said Andy Reising, manager of snow surveys and water supply forecasting for the California Department of Water Resources.
This near-average winter followed an extremely wet and snowy 2023 and a wet 2024. This time last year, the snowpack measured 111% of average.
The dominance of wet weather has brought a reprieve from the severe drought Californians endured from 2020 through 2022, the state's driest three-year period on record.
The last time California had three consecutive years of average or above-average snow was from 1998 to 2000, Reising said. At that point, it had been 20 years since a similar pattern occurred, from 1978 to 1980.
This year's storms have brought ample rains at lower elevations, and statewide precipitation since Oct. 1 measures 103% of average for this time of year.
The last two wet years have also left California's reservoirs in good shape. The state's major reservoirs are now at 117% of average levels.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water for 19 million people in six counties, has a record amount of water banked in reservoirs and underground storage areas.
'The reservoirs are above average for this time of year, and so that's a great sign for this year moving forward,' Reising told reporters during a briefing Tuesday.
California's snowpack typically provides nearly a third of the state's water supply.
The latest storms and increased snowpack prompted state water officials last week to increase their forecast of water deliveries this year from the aqueducts of the State Water Project, which transports supplies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to Southern California. The allocation was increased to 40% of requested supplies, up from 35% a month earlier.
The Trump administration also announced last week that it increased water allocations this year for the Central Valley Project, or CVP, the federally managed system of dams and reservoirs that delivers supplies from the Delta to farmlands and communities in the San Joaquin Valley.
Many agencies that receive water from the CVP were already set to receive 100% of their allotments, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced that agricultural irrigation districts south of the Delta will now receive 40% allocations, up from an initial 35%, while those that receive water from the Friant-Kern and Madera canals will get 100% of their allotments.
The federal agency said in a written statement that it was seeking to 'maximize' water deliveries as President Trump recently directed in an executive order. Large agricultural water districts in the Central Valley have supported Trump's order, while environmental advocates have raised concerns that federal efforts to increase pumping in the Delta could threaten vulnerable fish species that have already suffered declines in recent years.
The Bureau of Reclamation said that, acting under Trump's executive order, it would 'continue to maximize pumping whenever possible at the federal pumping facility to move water to parts of California where it is needed most.'
Although the ample snowpack and nearly full reservoirs mean stable water supplies for California for the time being, officials and experts caution that the next dry spell could come at any time.
Scientific research has shown that droughts are growing more intense in the western United States because of global warming and that average snow lines have been creeping higher in the mountains as temperatures rise, altering runoff patterns.
In February, scientists noted that the snowpack was significantly smaller at many lower-elevation monitoring sites in the mountains after months of warmer-than-average temperatures.
This year also brought a pattern of more snow and wetter conditions in Northern California, with less snow and drier conditions in Southern California. As of Tuesday, the snowpack measured 118% of average in the northern Sierra Nevada, 91% of average in the central Sierra and 84% of average in the southern Sierra.
Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, said in a social media post that after Tuesday's cold weather system departs, 'spring will begin in earnest across California,' with much drier and warmer conditions in the coming days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
A fog-free San Francisco? Scientists ponder California's climate future
A fog-free San Francisco? Scientists ponder California's climate future Nearly 70% of Californians live in coastal counties, which figure to be most impacted by diminished fog. Show Caption Hide Caption Climate change is now impacting where Americans choose to live Many U.S. locales have reached a climate change "tipping point." Populations are declining as flooding becomes unbearable. SAN FRANCISCO – As most of the U.S. sweltered in mid-July 2022 − when temperatures in many major cities reached the high 90s and even triple digits − a national weather map showed San Francisco topping out at 65 degrees. It was just a typical foggy summer day in the city by the bay, which averaged 62 degrees that month, about the same as the next two Julys. Now the advent of climate change raises the question of whether summertime visitors will stop rushing out to buy sweatshirts upon arrival and instead feel perfectly comfortable in shorts and T-shirts. The future of San Francisco's iconic fog has been debated in media stories during recent years, and some experts note a diminished cloud cover along the California coast that could lead to a warming trend. But few if any detect signs that San Francisco's summer chill is going away like the once-celebrated Fog City Diner, which shut down at the end of May. 'From the data, I can't foresee it any time soon,'' said Rachel Clemesha, a project scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California-San Diego who studies the state's coastal climate. 'There are years when there's more or less cloud cover. The last couple of years have been within that range. It is a very foggy place, so it would be very dramatic to get you a fog-free city.'' Data on decreasing fog along coast is 'spotty' Clemesha said some decrease has been confirmed in Southern California in what residents there call the marine layer, mostly in highly urbanized areas, but nothing that applies statewide. Peter Weiss, a faculty researcher and lecturer at the UC-Santa Cruz department of environmental sciences, said that despite a growing narrative of waning fog along the California coast, the data to support it is 'very spotty,'' with few academic studies in the last decade. The reasons include the fog's unpredictability – Weiss calls it an 'ephemeral phenomenon'' – and the lack of a standard way to measure it. Some studies, such as the landmark analysis by James Johnstone and Todd Dawson in 2010, rely on airport visibility records. Others use satellite images to determine the extent of the cloud cover, and others yet believe water content is a more valuable gauge. The airport records are the most extensive, going back to 1950, and Weiss said from that year until 2012 they revealed a 5% decrease in fogginess. 'Nobody's quite sure why,'' he said. 'It probably has to do with the ocean's sea-surface temperature, and that goes through various phases. Overall, there's warming due to global warming, but it's episodic. There appears to be some pattern with less fog after the warmer sea-surface temperatures, but this is still an area of research.'' Many California residents, ecosystems would be affected While the scientific community endeavors to figure out the long-range impact of climate change on California's coastal fog, there's a strong consensus that diminished cloud cover would have a harmful effect. Nearly 27 million of California's 39 million residents – close to 70% – live in coastal counties, by far the largest total in the nation, and they generate 80% of the state's gross domestic product. Their lives are certain to be impacted, as would be the state's powerhouse agriculture industry, which totals close to $60 billion a year in revenue. Species such as the widely admired coastal redwoods, which get up to 40% of their yearly water intake from fog, could be threatened if that resource dwindled. Daniel Fernandez, an environmental sciences professor at Cal State Monterey Bay, is part of a group seeking a grant from a private foundation to study how climate change may alter fog and affect various ecosystems. 'You could have significant die-off of species that are dependent on the fog at locations where it gets reduced,'' he said. 'It would also change how people live. When you look a fog zones, you don't need air conditioning. There are a lot of things we don't need that we take for granted. Those things could all change.'' It can feel like living in a cloud The fog, more prevalent in the summer, is created when warm and moist air sweeps over cold waters, which are churned off the California coast by strong winds in what's known as upwelling. The marine cover can be light enough to simply cool down a warm day and thick enough to wet residents' hair and obscure their eyeglasses, giving the impression they're living in a cloud. Some years the fog is thicker than others, but it tends to be more extensive in Northern California than the state's southern coast because of the differences in their ocean temperature (colder in the north), latitude and topography. Ian Faloona, a professor of land, air and water resources at UC Davis, said he and a colleague conducted a study using regional climate models and found a downward trend in cloudiness along the coast, but agrees the overall evidence 'is not going to hit you over the head.'' He compares that to the abundant data indicating California in general is warming quickly, about 1 degree Celsius – 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit – per decade. Even San Francisco is heating up a bit, though not nearly as fast: Its average summer temperature has risen by 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970, according to the independent research group Climate Central. Two different perspectives on what the future holds But climate scientists are split over whether the increased heat will lead to less fog because the air over the ocean won't be cold enough to condense, or whether stronger winds will atone for that factor. 'Under climate change, we know the land is warming much faster than the ocean, so that temperature difference across the land and ocean interface is increasing, which could drive stronger winds, which could help preserve this cloudiness,'' Faloona said. 'So there are two arguments you could make about what we theoretically think should happen, and which one's winning out I think is still an open scientific question.'' Sara Baguskas, an assistant professor at San Francisco State University with a specialty in coastal fog, said the lack of conclusive evidence that it's ebbing should not induce complacency but rather stimulate funding to study and predict its patterns. She's among the climate researchers who have heard from longtime coastal residents saying the marine layer has subsided over the years. 'So it's not unreasonable to be concerned about coastal fog declining in the future, but it diminishing completely is unlikely,'' she said. 'No coastal fog in California is a scary thought for both people and ecosystems.''
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
California tsunami: Here's where damage and casualties could be the worst
Tsunamis pose a risk to the entire California coast. But should a major one strike, how bad could it be? A single tsunami likely won't cause the worst-case scenario for every region. But in total, more than 680,000 Californians are in a tsunami hazard area during the daytime. And in all, $12.6 billion in damage is possible across California's 20 coastal and bayside counties — a figure that doesn't include damage to ports, harbors, roads, essential facilities or other infrastructure. There are two main types of scenarios for a tsunami. The first, a 'distant-source' tsunami, comes from far away, like one spawned by a major earthquake in Alaska. That would provide an extensive warning — six hours for L.A. and five hours for San Francisco — but could produce the highest level of inundation for large swaths of the state. Then there are 'near-source' tsunamis, which can wash ashore in as little as 10 minutes following a nearby earthquake — leaving little time for a notice or evacuation. Here are some scenarios for different parts of California. Unless otherwise mentioned, figures are from the California Tsunami Program, which is run by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services and the California Geological Survey. Distant-source tsunami: More than 350 people could die or be injured along the Southern California coast if people wait to evacuate half an hour after an official evacuation warning is given. That includes about 200 casualties in Los Angeles County, roughly 80 in San Diego County, 60 in Orange County and about a dozen in Ventura County. A hypothetical magnitude 9.3 earthquake from Alaska — similar in scale to the monstrous 1964 tsunami-generating temblor — would offer six hours of warning; large temblors from Chile could provide 13 hours of warning. The maximum projected distant-source tsunami could bring waves of 15 feet above the mean sea level to Marina del Rey, the Santa Monica Pier, Naples and Alamitos Bay; 14 feet elsewhere in other parts of Long Beach; 10 feet at Manhattan Beach, San Pedro and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach; 9 feet in Malibu, Redondo Beach and Palos Verdes Hills; and 8 feet at Leo Carrillo State Beach. Those estimates were issued by the California Geological Survey and published in the city of Los Angeles' hazard mitigation plan. Damage estimate from distant-source tsunami: More than $1.4 billion. Near-source tsunami: Los Angeles could see a tsunami move from its source to coastal areas in as few as 10 or 15 minutes, the city's tsunami plan warns. According to public documents, depending on the fault that ruptures, or where an underwater landslide is triggered, there could be locally generated tsunami heights of 30 feet in Avalon on Catalina Island; 24 feet at Palos Verdes Hills; 18 feet in Two Harbors; 11 feet in Redondo Beach; 9 feet in Malibu; 8 feet in Long Beach and the Santa Monica Pier; 7 feet in Manhattan Beach and San Pedro; 5 feet in Marina del Rey; and 4 feet at Leo Carrillo State Beach. In the city of Los Angeles, officials say that the most catastrophic scenario would involve an underwater landslide triggered by an earthquake, because 'we wouldn't know that that landslide would occur until the wave arrives,' said Jon Brown, assistant general manager for the city's Emergency Management Department. Other L.A. County areas with considerable vulnerability include the ports, as well as San Pedro and Long Beach. The city of Los Angeles has an estimated 23,000 residents in the tsunami hazard area. In Long Beach, the number is 31,000. Distant-source tsunami: More than 230 people could die or be injured if people wait half an hour to evacuate after an official warning is given. Santa Cruz County could see more than 130 casualties; San Luis Obispo County, about 80. The estimated potential casualty tolls could be 16 in Monterey County and seven in Santa Barbara County. Damage estimate from distant-source tsunami: More than $3.5 billion. Near-source tsunami: Santa Cruz and Monterey counties could see a tsunami within minutes following quake-triggered underwater landslides, documents from both counties say. 'Even a moderate earthquake could cause a local-source tsunami from submarine landsliding in Monterey Bay,' public documents say. A near-source tsunami could bring waves of up to 15 feet above the mean sea level in the city of Marina, 9 feet at the Salinas River; 8 feet at the Pajaro River and Sand City, just northeast of Monterey, and 6 feet at Moss Landing, according to data published in Monterey County's hazard mitigation plan. Such devastation would not be unprecedented. A large earthquake in the Santa Barbara area in 1812 resulted in a tsunami 'that wiped out many coastal villages and destroyed ships in the harbor,' according to the U.S. Geological Survey. And 7-foot waves resulted from a tsunami in 1927, generated by an earthquake about 5 miles west of the Santa Barbara County coast, according to the California Geological Survey. The USGS said there's evidence of deposits from underwater landslides offshore of Santa Barbara dating back over 160,000 years, which suggests that 'future earthquakes could cause large submarine landslides and devastating tsunamis.' Distant-source tsunami: More than 1,300 people could die or be injured if people wait half an hour to evacuate after an official warning is given. About 500 of them could be in San Francisco; about 300 apiece in San Mateo and Marin counties; nearly 200 in Alameda County and 33 in Contra Costa County. Just north of the region, in Mendocino County, five people could die or be injured in that scenario. A hypothetical tsunami-generating earthquake in Alaska could provide 5 hours of warning; one from Chile could provide 13 hours of warning. The maximum projected distant-source tsunami could result in tsunami of 32 feet above mean sea level in San Francisco's Ocean Beach; 31 feet in Pacifica in San Mateo County; 27 feet in Bolinas in Marin County; 18 feet in Alameda; 14 feet in Sausalito and San Francisco's Aquatic Park; 13 feet on Alcatraz Island; and 11 feet in Richmond and Treasure Island, according to the California Geological Survey. Damage estimate from distant-source tsunami: More than $6.5 billion. Near-source tsunami: In Northern California, a near-source tsunami could generate a tsunami of 9 feet above sea level in Bolinas; 8 feet in Pacifica; 7 feet in Sausalito; 6 feet at Ocean Beach; 5 feet in Alameda; and 4 feet at Alcatraz Island, Treasure Island, Aquatic Park, Redwood City and Richmond. Cascadia scenario: Given its proximity to the Cascadia subduction zone, Del Norte County — the state's northernmost coastal region — is perhaps more exposed to tsunami risk than any other part of California. If people wait 10 minutes after an earthquake to evacuate — the shaking itself would be the warning to flee — more than 3,150 are at risk of being killed or injured by tsunami in Del Norte County, and more than 720 would be at risk in neighboring Humboldt County. Flooding could reach up to 30 feet above the average high tide along the outer coast of Humboldt Bay and the Eureka area, and up to 50 feet toward Crescent City. 'A large quake generated by the Cascadia subduction zone could create waves twice as large as the 1964 event, especially in Crescent City,' Rick Wilson, a former head of the California Geological Survey tsunami program, said in a statement. Damage estimates: Del Norte County, which is home to Crescent City, could see more than $1 billion in damage. Humboldt County, home to Eureka, could see $22 million.
Los Angeles Times
01-06-2025
- Los Angeles Times
Divers search for kayaker on Castaic Lake after two flip over
A search-and-rescue mission is underway on Castaic Lake, where two kayakers flipped over on Sunday afternoon. One of the kayakers, a woman, was rescued with no injuries. The other, a man, is still missing and presumed to have drowned, according to L.A. County Fire Capt. Sheila Kelliher. The incident occurred on the first day of the three-month summer period when officials say drownings in the state spike. The Fire Department arrived shortly before 1 p.m. in answer to a call about a kayaking accident. At the time of publication, divers were still searching the middle of the lake. The identities of the two kayakers aren't currently available. Kelliher could not confirm if either of the kayakers were wearing life jackets, but according to the Santa Clarita Valley Signal, which cited radio dispatch traffic, the rescued kayaker was wearing a life jacket, and the missing kayaker was not. Set among the Sierra Pelona Mountains in northwest L.A. County, Castaic Lake serves as the largest state project reservoir in Southern California. About 400 Californians die of drowning each year, according to the state Water Safety Coalition, with nearly half of all those occurring in the summer months of June, July and August. Parks officials urge the use of life jackets for all those in canoes, kayaks, stand-up paddleboards or any other human-powered vessel.
