The California flooding rains during February, 1986 [abstract]

After an unusually strong and persistent pattern of atmospheric circulation over the United State[s] in Fall 1985, it became quite changeable (although high amplitude anomalies still prevailed). Following a fall that was cold in the West and warm in the East with heavy precipitation, a high pressure ridge set in over the West during December, with generally light precipitation over most of the country. Throughout the winter, the central North Pacific was very active, with large negative atmospheric pressure anomalies centered at about 45°N, l60°W. This activity may have been encouraged by an enhanced meridional eastern North Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) gradient, with positive SST anomalies in the subtropics and negative anomalies in midlatitudes. However, in January, the western high pressure ridge remained strong and temperatures were remarkably warm, increasing the threat of drought in California after the two previous dry winters. However, in February, storms from a greatly expanded and southerly displaced Aleutian Low broke into the West Coast. An unusual siege from February 11 to February 20 flooded central and northern California, with very heavy precipitation and record to near-record runoff. Upwards of 50 percent of annual average precipitation fell on locations from the upper San Joaquin to the Feather River drainage basins, and the largest flow since observations began in the early 1900's was recorded on the Sacramento River at Sacramento. The atmospheric pattern that was responsible for this remarkable stormy spell developed when the western high pressure retrograded to the northwest into the Aleutians, accompanied by the strengthened and southerly extended storm tract that moved into California. Although exact details vary from case to case, this episode displayed meteorological conditions similar to those in several other historical California winter flood events. These included a long duration of very strong westerly to southwesterly winds over a long subtropical fetch into California. Much of the precipitation during this series of storms was orographically induced by the moisture laden flow rising over the Sierra ranges. Due to the warm air mass, snow levels were relatively high (about 7500 feet) during the heaviest precipitation, resulting in copious runoff.

The great February 1986 flood [abstract]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): There were many similarities between the February 1986 storm and that of December 1964 and also December 1955. The 1964 storm hit hardest a little further north and the North Coast took the brunt of that storm. December 1955 also produced higher north coastal area runoff. December 1955 produced greater peaks in the central part of the state than the 1964 flood and is perhaps more comparable south of the Lake Tahoe-American River area. But the real surprise this time was the volume. Four reservoirs, Folsom, Black Butte, Pardee, and Comanche, were filled completely and became surcharged (storing more water than the designed capacity). The 10 day total rainfall amounted to half the normal annual totals at many precipitation stations. The February 1986 flood is a vivid reminder of the extremes of California climate and the value of the extensive system of flood control works in the state. Before the storm, especially in January, there was much concern about the dryness of the water year. Then with the deluge, California's flood control systems were tested. By and large the system worked preventing untold damage and misery for most dwellers in the flat lands.

Comments on the nature of persistence in dendrochronologic records with implications for hydrology and climatology [abstract]

EXTRACT (SEE PDF FOR FULL ABSTRACT): Jurate Landwehr discussed the use of surrogate hydrologic records, specifically dendrochronologic records, to study the nature of persistence which is characteristic of hydrologic phenomenon. These proxy records are generally considered to correspond to such hydrologic measures as mean annual discharge but are much longer in length than directly measured hydrologic records. Consequently, they allow one to explore questions pertaining to the structure of candidate stochastic processes with greater validity than permitted by the latter.