“The dizzying pace of drastic change underscores the need for California to invest in the resilience of Sierra-Cascade communities and landscapes,” said the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. That urgency is now visible on the slopes of Boreal Mountain, where the start of winter has been marked not by deep powder but by bare earth and exposed rock.
Sitting at an elevation where winters usually would blanket the resort with upwards of 400 inches of natural snow, Boreal has combated unseasonably warm temperatures and meager snowfall totals. Without natural snow on which to rely to open its trails, the resort has utilized both traditional snow guns and state-of-the-art systems in order to blanket the slopes. “We blew as much snow as we could to make sure we could open safely for our guests,” says Tucker Norred, Boreal’s marketing director, who estimates 500 gallons of snow were used for early-season preparation.
Such snowmaking is done at a huge environmental cost. Conventional snow guns atomize water and compressed air, using 100 gallons a minute in optimal cold conditions. This water is often drawn from lakes and streams, with the risk of depleting local ecosystems. Energy use compounds the impact: up to up to 67% of a ski resort’s energy consumption</b between October and January, much of it from fossil fuels. This creates a feedback loop warming temperatures demand more artificial snow, and the fossil fuel use for production accelerates climate change. Boreal has also experimented with Snowfactory technology, a system that bypasses the need for freezing air by producing ice crystals inside a temperature-controlled container. The flakes are conveyed through pipes up to 600 feet to the slopes. Snowfactory snow is denser and more durable than conventional machine-made snow, lasting two to three times longer under thaw conditions. However, the trade-off is steep: the system consumes four to five times more energy than standard snow guns, though it uses less water about 13 to 18 gallons per minute. Its high cost, roughly half a million dollars per unit, limits its use to special events or extreme conditions. These technological adaptations are unfolding against a backdrop of shifting climate patterns in the Sierra Nevada. Research from UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography projects that by the late 21st century, average snowlines could rise 1,300 to 1,600 feet, with the northern Sierra potentially losing more than 70% of its seasonal snowcover. More precipitation will fall as rain at lower elevations, creating heavier winter runoff and challenging water management systems designed for gradual snowmelt.
Climate modeling underlines that unpredictability is the new norm. Atmospheric river storms-warmer and wetter than the traditional winter systems-will dump more snow on the highest elevations while leaving mid- and low-elevation slopes bare. This disparate distribution jeopardizes the viability of resorts like Boreal that sit below the elevations forecasted to retain reliable snowpack.
Other ski areas are meeting the challenge with the implementation of renewable energy and automation to maximize snowmaking. At Keystone Resort, automated snow guns connected to weather stations can power up and shut down in a matter of minutes, which lengthens cold-weather windows and reduces fuel consumption. Keystone parent Vail Resorts has achieved 100% renewable electricity across all its North American properties and aims for net-zero operations by 2030.
But as any scientist will attest, snowmaking is an adaptation, not a cure. “If the days are just too warm, even artificial snowmaking is insufficient,” says Dr. Madeleine Orr of Loughborough University. Without systemic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, technology cannot save the winter sports season on its own. For the green-minded recreationist, the Boreal story serves as a harbinger that the future of skiing depends not just on feats of engineering, but climate action that stabilizes the snowpack itself.
