Higher Elevation Washington resorts needed...?

The late start at Snoqualmie and Alpental this year has got me thinking about some of our lower elevation resorts in Washington.  Given the climate change we appear to be seeing, in the near future Washington State and the Feds will have to allow for development of higher elevation Ski areas.  Just a Hypothesis, but probably one worth considering.  A few years back I read an article about development of a ski resort on the flanks of Mt. Adams, in part due to the eventual rise of snow levesls.  Does anyone have any insight into the likelihood of this sort of scenario?
www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Yakama-N...s-resort-1159620.php
Are there any other efforts of this sort?

Wouldn't a single dry December fall under the"weather"category and not "climate change?" It would take a few years of this to have me worried.

I believe 2004/2005 was so bad that Snoqualmie gave season pass holders a free pass for the next season because they only ran for a handful of days. This was soon followed by some very nice snow years.

I think the words "need" and "have to allow" should be replaced with"want" and "should allow". I think the skiing at lower elevations near Snoq. Pass has been marginal for a while.

There were a bunch of proposals back in the 60's for new ski resorts in the NW...some were rather ambitious, such as a resort on Mt.Hinman. Lowell has a very detailed list on his site here:
www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/subjects/S...l#ski-areas-proposed

The window for new resorts in the NW is pretty much closed, IMHO. The political climate towards such development is hostile, the amount of capital necessary to overcome the modern approval process is absurd, and the federal agencies aren't particularly interested.

Also, skiing above treeline in the winter in the PNW often presents very challenging conditions, so moving resort skiing up in elevation present's it's own difficulties.

Annexing British Columbia is probably a simpler solution ;D

I think Jonn-E is absolutely correct which is a real shame. Based on population growth alone a few new ski areas to accommodate Western Washington skiers seems reasonable. It's getting crowded up there!

Pete posted a link to Lowells website which is well worth perusing. It's basically an aggregation of all historical articles regarding the development of skiing and ski areas in Washington.

Of particular interest to me is the information regarding the development of NCNP. The original plan for the park included the development of more road access as well as up to 4 alpine trams in places like Ruby Mountain and Price Lake along with the possibility of developing more ski areas. Of course in the end all that was dropped and what is essentially a wilderness park was created. Now you can't take a piss in the park or even the recreation area without a permit. How that played out would be an interesting story but I couldn't infer the tale from Lowells data.

Ruby Mountain and the Granite Creek Corridor were apparently excluded from the park due to Ski Area Industry pressure. Ultimately it was decided that Ruby Mountain was too steep for skiing. Times change. I guess you can always dream....

seems like additional ski resorts are unlikely until climate change eventually/possibly ends lift skiing at Snoqualmie & Stevens.

If/when WA is down to just one or two reliable ski areas, then perhaps taking a slice out of the North Cascades or developing the east side of Adams is going to become something that everyone takes another look at.

If Al Gore is right, we don't have time to mess around here. I say Peak To Peak Gondy between Crystal and the top of Inner Glacier, to start with. ..........................................just kidding too much Elk habitat, I understand.

seems like additional ski resorts are unlikely until climate change eventually/possibly ends lift skiing at Snoqualmie & Stevens. 

If/when WA is down to just one or two reliable ski areas, then perhaps taking a slice out of the North Cascades or developing the east side of Adams is going to become something that everyone takes another look at.

I find it hard to be optimistic about the future of skiing when reading articles like the one in today's NYTimes:

www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth...-will-be-costly.html

Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a draft United Nations report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, experts found.

Delay would likely force future generations to develop the ability to suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and store them underground to preserve the livability of the planet, the report found. But it is not clear whether such technologies will ever exist at the necessary scale, and even if they do, the approach would likely be wildly expensive compared with taking steps now to slow emissions.

The article is alarming, perhaps alarmist.  But I have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that we're screwed. And not just because of this article.

"First world problem" may ultimately be too generous a term to describe the decline of skiing.

I've said the same thing about Mt Baker Ski Area in the past...if only it were another 2000' higher we wouldn't have the conditions that give us 35* and snowing as Gwynn so cheerfullly reports on many a "powder day".  This year I don't think another 2000' would change much, we really haven't seen much in the way of "almost not rain" at the lodges, it just isn't precipitating at all and we've been dealing with inversions! I left my house nearly at sea level this morning in the mid 30's and checked the telemetry when I got to work and it's been in the mid 40's at 4000-5000 feet.  Yes the snow is more consistent up higher but the glaciers are much more broken up and the snow quality really isn't that great, often windblown or heavily sun affected.

It's interesting that generally the climate models show the PNW receiving more precipitation in the winter (and less in the summer) during future decades, so if true, what we've had this season (dry) isn't really typical of what to expect. If that played out, it might be a bit of a wash for PNW skiing, at least in the near term: more precip but also progressively warmer. Higher elevations would do well and the lower resorts (Snoqualmie Pass, Skibowl, etc.) would get more rain.

But, I agree that in the grand scheme of things, this is a first world problem - more pressing is that there are probably going to be "climate refugees" moving here in droves from harder hit places to our (relatively) cool and wet Shangri-La.