This year, the Washington State Department of Ecology and others (e.g., the Seattle Times) are claiming we are in a drought emergency.
In several of my recent blogs, I explained why I think they are wrong.
Precipitation has been above normal, reservoirs are full, substantial snowpack is in place (about 50% of normal), soils are moist, current forecasts are for substantial spring precipitation, and there is little evidence of any impacts of the low snowpack on water supplies or agriculture.
Remember, a key aspect of a drought is that it has to have substantial IMPACTS.
To quote the drought.gov website:
A drought is a prolonged period of abnormally low rainfall or, generally, a severe deficiency of moisture, resulting in water shortages for people, agriculture, and ecosystems.
Droughts need to have impacts, and the negative impacts of the high precipitation/low snowpack situation this year will be minimal
It would be interesting to evaluate the track record of drought advocates in government, the media, and climate advocacy groups.
So let's do it!
Consider last year (2025).
The Department of Ecology put out a drought EMERGENCY declaration in early April and expanded it greatly on June 5, 2025:
The Seattle Times and other media outlets had several drought stories, becoming increasingly ominous over time, about the serious drought threat (see sample below).
In my blog last year, I argued against the extreme drought mania, providing the actual water supply numbers, which suggest little or no impact. But the dire warnings continued and amplified.
A year later, we know the truth: there was no problem with water supply for the population, and Washington Agriculture flourished. The dire warnings were totally wrong.
Seattle's water supply? Never got close to low-reservoir conditions in 2025 (dashed lines below). Other major water supply reservoirs (e.g., Tacoma, Everett, etc) were similar.
How about the 2025 crops?
Apples? There was a RECORD-EQUALING harvest of excellent quality (color and size).
Cherries? A strong, bumper crop with some of the best quality in years, with a long season. Excellent quality and big fruit.
Potatoes? The 2025 crop was characterized by high quality and excellent growing conditions, with a similar yield to 2024. Chris Voigt, Executive Director at the Washington Potato Commission, noted that 2025 lacked extended periods of heat and overall had ideal weather conditions for potatoes.
Wheat? USDA’s Small Grains Summary, Washington, noted that the state produced 141.5 million bushels of wheat in 2025, which is down 1.5% from 2024, but still 12% above the five-year average.
Raspberries? Last year’s total production exceeded 60 million pounds, which will be the highest harvest since 2018.
I could discuss more crops, but you get the message. 2025 was an excellent year for Washington State agriculture, with little evidence of drought impacts.
Did drought greatly reduce Northwest hydropower output (see U.S. government analysis below)?
Nope. According to Federal data, NW hydropower was close to the long-term average, with a nice recovery from 2025.
The bottom line in all this is that there was little evidence of drought over our region based on impacts, and such impacts are required to call a situation a drought.
Some locations are fortunate to receive more precipitation than is required, and we are lucky to be in such a place.
For me, a more interesting question is why Washington State officials don't understand this basic fact?
And why are Seattle Times reporters not completing the simple research that indicates that last year's drought warnings were without any basis in terms of impacts?
I bet you guess why such deceptive, scary language is being used by those responsible for informing us.
But whatever the motive, it is very harmful, resulting in unnecessary worry and leading to bad decisions (like the wasteful, corrupting Washington State CCA, which preferentially hurts low-income people while enriching special interest groups).
