MAKE TAHOE DEEP AGAIN ~ 2016/17 OFISHUL SNOW/FOOD/WHINE & STOKE THREAD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Bummer about the rain levels so early, although not surprising. I will, however, take some smug satisfaction towards all of my Bay Area friends who ignored my advice and drove up this weekend anyway.

---

If you aren't local and you want to ski you have to take some chances--better drive up to play video games all day than to stay home and miss an unexpectedly good day. I say congratulate them for dedication and passion for the sport.

Not your post but who was getting 2 laps in 3.5 hours? I was at Squaw for 3 hours yesterday and did 3 laps on KT, 2 on Red Dog (because I got parked by Far East), a Funnel, and a mountain run, and I'm really slow and stop a lot on KT. The wait on KT was about 15 minutes. (Before high speed lifts that would have been a full 8 hour day at Squaw. Some things have gotten better over the years.

I'm not too familiar with P-house, but will say this - no matter what the avy conditions are, there is always stuff that is safe to ski in the backcountry. People that don't post on the internet from 200 miles away were out skiing awesome pow all week. If you just ski backcountry lines when you think it is "safe", you are just setting yourself up to get caught off guard - it's all about risk management, no matter the conditions. But I'm ok with more people being timid about getting after it, parking on the West shore was a bitch as it was. Caltrans only plowed the main Jakes and Rubicon pullout. Bliss SP also unplowed. Hopefully not how it's gonna be all season every time we get a decent storm.

Rose ski'd well this AM. Yes it was wet, but a few inches of cream and some wind made for some good turns. Definitely a ski-gee day as it was freezing on the goggles up top. Got in 2 1/2 hours & a dozen runs before I quit about 11:15.
Was snowing pretty good at 6500' when I left at 8:15 but full on raining at Noon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

If you aren't local and you want to ski you have to take some chances--better drive up to play video games all day than to stay home and miss an unexpectedly good day. I say congratulate them for dedication and passion for the sport.

---

There's pretty big distinction between taking a chance to see how it turns out vs. hoping for a miracle... and then getting stuck on Sunday when you can't make it back home because 80 is closed. I'd chalk it up to "Squaw / Northstar said it's gonna be awesome!" Yes... of course they did. I'm all for the mantra of "you don't know unless you go," but sometimes you do know.

The 2 runs in 3.5 hours thing was back a page or two in this thread.

Big props to that couple for writing up a report. I definitely try to do the same with any incidents I'm involved in, nothing like a sting to the ego to help you make better decisions moving forward. Toured moderate heavily wooded terrain the last two days. At the first popular drop-in point there were shooting cracks extending several hundred feet across the open area. At full extension (155cm) shoving my touring pole into the cracks barely grazed the bed surface. Was relieved to not see any down tracks. If you tried to ride this zone and it cut loose you would get strained through trees at the bottom and survival would be unlikely. Essentially retraced my skin track on the way down, not sexy, but still fun, and two incredibly beautiful days to be outside period. Hope this rain at least flushes some areas and helps consolidate others. Be safe out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!

I'm not too familiar with P-house, but will say this - no matter what the avy conditions are, there is always stuff that is safe to ski in the backcountry. People that don't post on the internet from 200 miles away were out skiing awesome pow all week. If you just ski backcountry lines when you think it is "safe", you are just setting yourself up to get caught off guard - it's all about risk management, no matter the conditions. But I'm ok with more people being timid about getting after it, parking on the West shore was a bitch as it was. Caltrans only plowed the main Jakes and Rubicon pullout. Bliss SP also unplowed. Hopefully not how it's gonna be all season every time we get a decent storm.

---

I totally agree. Careful terrain management on high avalanche danger days can be much safer than skiing anything you want on moderate days or even ignoring avalanche warning signs on low days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmmm...pow!

it's all about risk management, no matter the conditions.

---

My take on your statement would be, it's all about "problem management" and selecting terrain appropriate for dealing with the problems that exist. If you'd like to discuss terrain decisions and ways of managing this problem any further, I invite you onto the thread in the Slide Zone.

Join the club...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...107-story.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

If you aren't local and you want to ski you have to take some chances--better drive up to play video games all day than to stay home and miss an unexpectedly good day. I say congratulate them for dedication and passion for the sport.

Not your post but who was getting 2 laps in 3.5 hours? I was at Squaw for 3 hours yesterday and did 3 laps on KT, 2 on Red Dog (because I got parked by Far East), a Funnel, and a mountain run, and I'm really slow and stop a lot on KT. The wait on KT was about 15 minutes. (Before high speed lifts that would have been a full 8 hour day at Squaw. Some things have gotten better over the years.

---

That was my post, and I probably wasn't clear- the 3.5 hours was a two hour wait for the Mothership to pop + a 1.5 hour wait for Granite Chief to open. Self inflicted waits on both, at the expense of hot laps on other chairs, and worth every second as they were two of the better resort runs I've ever had.

^^ I do admire the patience of that, I have to admit. Not something I could do.

Am I allowed to punch anyone that says Commiefornia is still in a drought after this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BGnight

Am I allowed to punch anyone that says Commiefornia is still in a drought after this?

---

No.

Because for the southern half to two-thirds of the state that will still actually be true. Counterintuitive as that may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

No.

Because for the southern half to two-thirds of the state that will still actually be true. Counterintuitive as that may be.

---

More than half the state is semi arid desert or desert. Drought is the normal state of things, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mandudebro

That was my post, and I probably wasn't clear- the 3.5 hours was a two hour wait for the Mothership to pop + a 1.5 hour wait for Granite Chief to open. Self inflicted waits on both, at the expense of hot laps on other chairs, and worth every second as they were two of the better resort runs I've ever had.

---

Got it. I'm past the point of waiting that long for a lift to open. I'll leave that to you young whippersnappers.

As far as drought goes--still drought. There will still probably be a huge groundwater deficit, although no one will know for sure because the state just started keeping track of ground water usage. As of the first snow survey in Norcal on Jan 3 the water content of the snow back was 55% of normal. The last storm obviously improved things but it will depend on what happens the rest of the season. Once the reservoirs are full continued rain doesn't help--right now the reservoirs are increasing releases and the bypasses are being opened to prevent flooding which means the water that is falling now isn't being stored . Only a healthy snowpack that will provide water through the summer and fall will help. And that's for norcal. Socal is in worse shape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

More than half the state is semi arid desert or desert. Drought is the normal state of things, no?

---

Yes. But we're coming out of the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, so... it's been a bit worse than normal.

Check out the tree mortality photos of the Southern Sierra. Not exactly normal. And that continued this past year. May (likely will?) continue next year too.

Plus, in terms of water supply for human consumption, rain to super high elevations isn't ideal. We couldn't hope to build close to enough reservoir space to make up for the snowpack. On that note, it's likely that water managers are going to consider the state essentially in a permanent semi-drought state from this point forward even if we're no longer in a true drought (which, as I said, much of the state still is) according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Climate change + insufficient infrastructure = permanent water supply drought. New normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BGnight

Am I allowed to punch anyone that says Commiefornia is still in a drought after this?

---

Not until Shasta and Oroville are full and there is always the water table depletion which is critical. How many feet has the central alley dropped? I don't think we are ready to grow cotton in Kern County

Edit. Oroville full. Shasta close

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Yes. But we're coming out of the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, so... it's been a bit worse than normal.

Check out the tree mortality photos of the Southern Sierra. Not exactly normal. And that continued this past year. May (likely will?) continue next year too.

Plus, in terms of water supply for human consumption, rain to super high elevations isn't ideal. We couldn't hope to build close to enough reservoir space to make up for the snowpack. On that note, it's likely that water managers are going to consider the state essentially in a permanent semi-drought state from this point forward even if we're no longer in a true drought (which, as I said, much of the state still is) according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. Climate change + insufficient infrastructure = permanent water supply drought. New normal.

---

After living in CA for 15 years I realized how precarious the water situation is with the large metros and ag relying on snow in the Sierra for water. It seems like the state is just a few horrible seasons away from catastrophe.

Yep, exactly. Things were looking *really* ugly in 2015.

Which is why I think the water managers are going to treat things going forward as a kind of semi-permanent drought. We've lived way outside our means in the past. We still are, honestly.

Seems obvious it'll be that much better this year, but yeah. U.S. Drought Monitor still ugly for the southern 2/3s of the state.

California

Nevada

U.S.

That is the best that last map has looked in years. It will be interesting to see how the next week pans out. Those maps also do not include the water event from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Things are moving in the right direction for the first time in years. I'd wager that this week's events will drop the LA region to D2, and much of the D4 zone into D3. Feeling optimistic.

I agree with Lightranger that the state will likely continue to operate as if we are in Moderate Drought in the future. While this drought was/is severe, fluctuations in snowpack are not uncommon. Hopefully this means curtailment on development.

commiefornia is still in a drought

bring it!!!!!
heheheh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

More than half the state is semi arid desert or desert. Drought is the normal state of things, no?

---

By definition, no.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drought

A drought in a desert means the desert gets unusually low amounts of precip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reid

By definition, no.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/drought

A drought in a desert means the desert gets unusually low amounts of precip.

---

Yes, I know what drought means but the most populous state being largely desert leads to water shortages being the norm. Even in normal or above normal years water shortages are the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

Yes, I know what drought means but the most populous state being largely desert leads to water shortages being the norm. Even in normal or above normal years water shortages are the norm.

---

It would be more accurate to describe the south west as a desert. Central and Northern California have very different climates.

Santa Cruz has an annual average rainfall of 31"
Seattle - 38"
Wenatchee (which is lee, for sure) - 14"

Go a little further north
Humboldt County - 55"

So suggest the state is largely a desert is incorrect. A portion of the very large state where the vast majority of the population live is a desert is perhaps a better description.

As for water and shortages, it likely depends on which region you are in.

I think the difference between here, and a place in the midwest is not how much water we get, but when and how we get it. Typically there is no rain south of Shasta and west of the West Slope from mid May to mid October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadman

Join the club...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...107-story.html

---

There's always a drought in late spring resort skiing considering the nearly 20% increase in season pass sales and the nearly doubling of skier days over the past couple years. Those increased sales, especially when combined with deep winters, used to get reflected in much longer seasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ottime

It would be more accurate to describe the south west as a desert. Central and Northern California have very different climates.

Santa Cruz has an annual average rainfall of 31"
Seattle - 38"
Wenatchee (which is lee, for sure) - 14"

Go a little further north
Humboldt County - 55"

So suggest the state is largely a desert is incorrect. A portion of the very large state where the vast majority of the population live is a desert is perhaps a better description.

As for water and shortages, it likely depends on which region you are in.

I think the difference between here, and a place in the midwest is not how much water we get, but when and how we get it. Typically there is no rain south of Shasta and west of the West Slope from mid May to mid October.

---

Well I did say semi arid desert and desert. The entirety of the Bay area with the exception of a few places right on the coast are classed a semi arid desert. The Central Valley is a semi arid desert. Nearly every thing south of Sacramento with the exception of a few small micro climes is semi arid desert or desert. CA is dry. WA is too, the precip here is more like 9-10".

Bear Valley preemptively closed tomorrow for weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LightRanger

Yes. But we're coming out of the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, so... it's been a bit worse than normal.

---

Some would consider the CA "drought" from 900-1200 to have been an example of "climate change" and not just a "drought" or "mega-drought".

In our current world, "drought" in California is often a regulatory thing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powpig

Rose ski'd well this AM. Yes it was wet, but a few inches of cream and some wind made for some good turns. Definitely a ski-gee day as it was freezing on the goggles up top. Got in 2 1/2 hours & a dozen runs before I quit about 11:15.
Was snowing pretty good at 6500' when I left at 8:15 but full on raining at Noon.

---

Surprisingly it got better as the day wore on. From 2 - 4 it snowed 2-3 inches, the wnd blew, the buff was Good!! Ended up with a 6 hour day and wanted more. Unexpected fun for sure.

To the whiners to the west.

The Chutes never opened and no one complained. We just accepted the fact that with the wet snow this morning, 35- 60 MPH gusts that patrol knows what thier doing and made the right decison.

Didn't see anyone in this thread ever blame patrol. WTF are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ottime

It would be more accurate to describe the south west as a desert. Central and Northern California have very different climates.

Santa Cruz has an annual average rainfall of 31"
Seattle - 38"
Wenatchee (which is lee, for sure) - 14"

Go a little further north
Humboldt County - 55"

So suggest the state is largely a desert is incorrect. A portion of the very large state where the vast majority of the population live is a desert is perhaps a better description.

As for water and shortages, it likely depends on which region you are in.

I think the difference between here, and a place in the midwest is not how much water we get, but when and how we get it. Typically there is no rain south of Shasta and west of the West Slope from mid May to mid October.

---

+1. Marin where I live in gets 54 inches of average annual rainfall sustaining green, fern filled coniferous forest. Old growth red wood forests in deep canyons. Reservoirs used for our water here were officially 99.99% full before this storm hit. No drought here and hasn't been but water rates still went up.

Drought has become a politicized term used for a variety of reasons. I do believe the condition is more severe in parts of central and southern Cal that pipe from the mountains and sustain a lot of agriculture

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

+1. Marin where I live in gets 54 inches of average annual rainfall sustaining green, fern filled coniferous forest. Old growth red wood forests in deep canyons. Reservoirs used for our water here were officially 99.99% full before this storm hit. No drought here and hasn't been but water rates still went up.

Drought has become a politicized term used for a variety of reasons. I do believe the condition is more severe in parts of central and southern Cal that pipe from the mountains and sustain a lot of agriculture

---

The average rainfall for Marin county is much lower than 54". Where exactly do you live. Bolinas only get 20-25" a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

The average rainfall for Marin county is much lower than 54". Where exactly do you live. Bolinas only get 20-25" a year.

---

Sorry, 52.65".

https://marinwater.org/300/Water-Watch

Edit: I should add that Bolinas is coastal and this data is from Lake Lagunitas. The 'big mountain' in between affects things significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

Not saying it always ran but it definitely ran more than it does now. In 2010 / 11 (the last year under JMA) I probably rode ABC more days than I have in the 5 years since then. It's also much more crowded now (does anyone deny that?) so it's a more egregious decision to leave it sitting there. You're comparing apples and oranges.

---

I can count the number of times on one hand that ABC ran in the years I skied there, granted 10/11 I spent the first half of the season in Japan, I didn't ride it once that year, though it legit might have gotten buried and not seen till spring, or was that lakeview? It was open a handful of times the next few seasons from my recollection, and yes the crowds got shitty, made worse by the fact that hoards of people with no clue how to traverse/hike were doing so.

Back to SB, I bumped into Jeremy Jones a ton there back in the day for the same reasons as Rhalves. Plenty of pros there, epecially early season when they had more terrain open than Squaw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gageyk

Surprisingly it got better as the day wore on. From 2 - 4 it snowed 2-3 inches, the wnd blew, the buff was Good!! Ended up with a 6 hour day and wanted more. Unexpected fun for sure.

To the whiners to the west.

The Chutes never opened and no one complained. We just accepted the fact that with the wet snow this morning, 35- 60 MPH gusts that patrol knows what thier doing and made the right decison.

---

From the whiners from the west, I hope Lakeview at Alpine finally opened today. Those runs are more steep than the chutes right?

Last time I saw Jones on the hill, he snaked my line on High Yellow. It was an honor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

Well I did say semi arid desert and desert. The entirety of the Bay area with the exception of a few places right on the coast are classed a semi arid desert. The Central Valley is a semi arid desert. Nearly every thing south of Sacramento with the exception of a few small micro climes is semi arid desert or desert. CA is dry. WA is too, the precip here is more like 9-10".

---

I am going to disagree on the bay area. Csb Mediterranean not semi arid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

Sorry, 52.65".

https://marinwater.org/300/Water-Watch

Edit: I should add that Bolinas is coastal and this data is from Lake Lagunitas. The 'big mountain' in between affects things significantly.

---

San Rafael gets 35 inches. Mill Valley 38, Novato 27.
The problem with the wet coastal communities is that many of them rely entirely on local rainfall and small reservoirs. While 34 or 62 inches of rain a year sounds like a lot, it all falls in the winter, most of it can't be stored, and it's not as much as the 60-80 inches of water a year that falls in most of the Sierra Nevada, much of it hopefully in the form of snow. In drought years it's those wet coastal towns that are usually hurting the worst. Meanwhile the dry south and central valley have access to snow-fed major water systems as well as a groundwater to get them by when the Sierra doesn't deliver. (Here in Truckee--despite having Donner Lake and abundant precipitation we use only groundwater.)
If you happen to be in Tucson during the monsoon about 5 in the afternoon and look at the normally dry Rillito River you might not understand that Tucson is in a desert. It's not just how much it precipitates but the pattern of precipitation throughout the year and what infrastructure there is to manage the water.
The aridity of the west is of course an old issue and has always been controversial--see Stegner's "Beyond the 100th Meridian" about John Wesley Powell who made a career of trying to counteract the propaganda of development interests that the west is a garden of Eden. The west is dry. A lot of western homesteaders went quickly bust or even starved to death ignoring that fact.

You kids want get off topic about drought, anybody noticed those fallowed fields in the San Joaquin? Or better almost on topic, with prop 64 passage, where will the water come from for all the grows, large scale or small indoor operations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronWright

Yes, I know what drought means but the most populous state being largely desert leads to water shortages being the norm. Even in normal or above normal years water shortages are the norm.

---

I don't disagree, but I thought we were talking about drought, which has a real meaning, and a generally-accepted definition. When you look at a drought map they're talking about shortages of rainfall, not "water shortages" which of course can be about the snowpack going away early and leaving us without water, or overusage, or misdirection, or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

Some would consider the CA "drought" from 900-1200 to have been an example of "climate change" and not just a "drought" or "mega-drought".

In our current world, "drought" in California is often a regulatory thing....

---

No, the "regulatory thing" would be a water shortage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driver

Drought has become a politicized term used for a variety of reasons. I do believe the condition is more severe in parts of central and southern Cal that pipe from the mountains and sustain a lot of agriculture

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bodywhomper

You kids want get off topic about drought, anybody noticed those fallowed fields in the San Joaquin? Or better almost on topic, with prop 64 passage, where will the water come from for all the grows, large scale or small indoor operations?

---

These are both about water shortages, not drought.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures...ghtPublic2.pdf