A powerful late-February storm battered the Sierra Nevada around Lake Tahoe from Feb. 16–20, 2026, leaving some locations with more than 10 feet of new snow and severely reduced visibility. UC Berkeley’s Central Sierra Snow Laboratory recorded 111 inches over five days, the snowiest five-day stretch there in more than 40 years. Ski areas also reported extraordinary totals — Sugar Bowl measured 111 inches for the week and Palisades Tahoe reported 124 inches at upper elevations. The deep, unusually powdery snowfall improved short-term water prospects but heightened avalanche danger and raised questions about what warmer systems could mean for runoff and flood risk.
Key takeaways
- UC Berkeley Central Sierra Snow Laboratory measured 111 inches of snow over five days, the lab’s snowiest five-day period since at least 1982.
- Snow-to-liquid ratios reached about 21:1 on Wednesday, far drier than the Sierra’s typical 8:1–10:1 “Sierra cement” patterns.
- Sugar Bowl reported a weekly total of 111 inches, including 27 inches in the most recent 24-hour period; Palisades Tahoe recorded 124 inches at its upper mountain.
- Statewide snow water equivalent stood at roughly 75% of normal for the date: southern Sierra 101%, central Sierra 76%, northern Sierra/Cascades 54%.
- Powdery new snow on older melt-refreeze crust created unstable layers that contributed to an avalanche incident that reportedly killed a presumed nine backcountry skiers on Tuesday.
- Cold storms also left snow on Bay Area peaks such as Mount Tamalpais and Mount Diablo.
- Forecasts point to a warmer system next week; whether rain will drive rapid melt and flooding or be absorbed by the light snowpack remains uncertain.
Background
The Sierra Nevada receives highly variable snowfall driven by Pacific storm tracks and atmospheric river events. This February event followed a prolonged dry spell: after notable December storms, January and early February were largely dry, leaving a deficit in both total depth and water content. That early-season shortfall meant the region started this storm from a below-normal base, making recent gains significant but not yet fully restorative.
Snowpack is measured both as depth and as snow water equivalent (SWE), the latter indicating how much water will be available once the snow melts. Powdery, low-density snow produces high depth for relatively low SWE; conversely, dense “Sierra cement” yields more water per inch. That distinction helps explain why extraordinary depth totals over a few days do not immediately translate into a proportionally large recovery of water resources.
Main event
The storm intensified midweek and persisted through Friday morning, delivering heavy snowfall across the central and northern Sierra. At the Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, observers logged 111 inches over five days — a rare tally exceeded only by December 1970 (113 inches) and April 1982 (118.5 inches) in the lab’s records. Visibility on mountain roadways and near resorts dropped to levels described by lab staff as the worst seen in about three years.
Resorts reported dramatic accumulations: Sugar Bowl posted a weekly total of 111 inches with 27 inches in a single 24-hour window, while Palisades Tahoe measured 124 inches at its upper mountain. The storm’s cold core pushed snow down to unusual low elevations; Bay Area ridge lines such as Mount Tamalpais and Mount Diablo received measurable snow.
Snow observers noted that the new snowfall was unusually light and fluffy, with a measured snow-to-liquid ratio around 21:1 on Wednesday. That contrasts with typical Sierra ratios of about 8:1 to 10:1, when dense, wet snow prevails. The powdery nature allowed winds to loft snow, worsening visibility and complicating travel and rescue operations.
Analysis & implications
The immediate hydrologic implication is mixed: while the volume of snow depth increased substantially, the low water content means the storm’s contribution to long-term water reserves is less than depth alone would suggest. State SWE at the date in question was about 75% of the historical average, so this event narrowed the gap but did not erase it. Southern Sierra readings fared best at 101% of normal, central Sierra about 76%, and northern Sierra/Cascades around 54%.
Avalanche risk rose sharply because a fluffy new layer settled atop an older melt-refreeze crust, creating weak bonding between layers. That instability was a factor in the backcountry fatalities reported Tuesday, underscoring the ongoing hazards for skiers and other recreators off groomed trails. Rescue and public-safety workflows were further strained by limited visibility and deep drifts.
Looking ahead, the next storm system is forecast to be warmer. If rain accompanies warm air into the mountains, rapid melt and higher runoff could increase flood risk in lower-elevation watersheds and challenge reservoirs and levees. Alternatively, light, porous snow can absorb rainfall, reducing immediate runoff but complicating predictions. Scientists emphasize that small changes in temperature and precipitation phase can shift outcomes significantly.
Comparison & data
| Site / Period | Reported Total |
|---|---|
| Central Sierra Snow Laboratory (5 days) | 111 in |
| Historical: Dec. 1970 (5 days) | 113 in |
| Historical: Apr. 1982 (5 days) | 118.5 in |
| Sugar Bowl (week) | 111 in (27 in in 24 hrs) |
| Palisades Tahoe (upper mountain, week) | 124 in |
The table highlights how exceptional the multi-day depth totals were compared with the lab’s archive. However, because the snow-to-liquid ratio this week was near 21:1, the equivalent water volume is substantially lower than an equal depth of dense Sierra snow. That partly explains why statewide SWE remained below average despite record depth in places.
Reactions & quotes
“The type of snow that you would expect out in the Rockies,”
Andrew Schwartz, director, UC Berkeley Central Sierra Snow Laboratory
Schwartz used that comparison to stress how different this storm’s texture was from typical Sierra events, pointing to implications for both travel conditions and water content.
“This was still a giant leap forward in terms of getting our water resources in better shape,”
Andrew Schwartz, UC Berkeley Central Sierra Snow Laboratory
Schwartz framed the storm as a substantive improvement over the preceding dry weeks while cautioning that recovery remained incomplete.
Unconfirmed
- The final, confirmed count and circumstances of the avalanche fatalities remain under official investigation and may be revised as authorities release more information.
- How a warmer storm or rain next week will translate into runoff versus absorption by the new powder layer is currently uncertain and depends on timing, temperature profiles, and rainfall intensity.
Bottom line
This storm produced extraordinary depth totals in parts of the Sierra and locally improved short-term snow depth, but its dry, powdery character limited the immediate gains in water content. That distinction matters: depth headlines do not automatically equal water security, and state SWE figures remain below typical levels for the date.
Public-safety and water-management attention will now turn to forecasts: if rain or sustained warm temperatures arrive, managers must weigh flood risk from rapid melt against the possibility that powdery snow could sponge up some rainfall. For recreationists, the message is clear — even after a big dump, backcountry conditions can be lethal and require heightened caution and up-to-date guidance from authorities.