Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Energy and water co-benefits from covering canals with solar panels


Solar power development over canals is an emerging response to the energy–water–food nexus that can result in multiple benefits for water and energy infrastructure. Case studies of over-canal solar photovoltaic arrays have demonstrated enhanced photovoltaic performance due to the cooler microclimate next to the canal. In addition, shade from the photovoltaic panels has been shown to mitigate evaporation and potentially mitigate aquatic weed growth. However, the evaporation savings and financial co-benefits have not been quantified across major canal systems. Here we use regional hydrologic and techno-economic simulations of solar photovoltaic panels covering California’s 6,350 km canal network, which is the world’s largest conveyance system and covers a wide range of climates, insolation rates and water costs. We find that over-canal solar could reduce annual evaporation by an average of 39 ± 12 thousand m3 per km of canal. Furthermore, the financial benefits from shading the canals outweigh the added costs of the cable-support structures required to span the canals. The net present value of over-canal solar exceeds conventional overground solar by 20–50%, challenging the convention of leaving canals uncovered and calling into question our understanding of the most economic locations for solar power.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Locations of California canals and study sites.
Fig. 2: Illustrations and flow diagrams showing the inputs and outputs of three solar PV systems.
Fig. 3: Maps of annual mean evaporation from water surfaces, PV solar resources and county-level numbers of diesel-powered irrigation pumps.
Fig. 4: Financial metrics for three different 1 MW PV system designs across a wide range of California sites.

Data availability

The SAM simulation outputs, Monte Carlo simulation outputs and bootstrap analysis that support the techno-economic analysis of this study are available from the Dryad Digital Repository76. The data that support the water conservation and diesel irrigation retirement findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (B.M.) upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.


  1. 1.

    Cash Receipts by Commodity State Ranking (USDA Economic Research Service, accessed September 2020);

  2. 2.

    Liu, Q. Interlinking climate change with water–energy–food nexus and related ecosystem processes in California case studies. Ecol. Process. 5, 1–14 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Management of the California State Water Project Bulletin 132-14 (California Department of Water Resources, 2015).

  4. 4.

    Fulton, J. & Cooley, H. The water footprint of California’s energy system, 1990–2012. Environ. Sci. Tech. 49, 3314–3321 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Welle, P. D., Medellin-Azuara, J., Viers, J. H. & Mauter, M. S. Economic and policy drivers of agricultural water desalination in California’s Central Valley. Agric. Water Manag. 194, 192–203 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Shobe, B. & Merrill, J. Climate Smart: Saving Water and Energy on California Farms. Recommendations for California’s State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP) (California Climate and Agriculture Network, 2018).

  7. 7.

    Crow, F. R. Comparison of chemical and nonchemical techniques for suppressing evaporation from small reservoirs. Trans. ASAE 10, 172–174 (1967).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cooley, K. R. Evaporation reduction: summary of long-term tank studies. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 109, 89–98 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gallego-Elvira, B., Martínez-Alvarez, V., Pittaway, P., Symes, T. & Hancock, N. The combined use of shade-cloth covers and monolayers to prevent evaporation in irrigation reservoirs. In International Conference on Agricultural Engineering 1–9 (AgEng, 2010);

  10. 10.

    Martinez-Alvarez, V., Maestre-Valero, J. F., Martin-Gorriz, B. & Gallego-Elvira, B. Experimental assessment of shade-cloth covers on agricultural reservoirs for irrigation in south-eastern Spain. Span. J. Agric. Res. 8, 122–133 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bontempo Scavo, F., Tina, G. M., Gagliano, A. & Nižetić, S. An assessment study of evaporation rate models on a water basin with floating photovoltaic plants. Int. J. Energy Res. 45, 167–188 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rosa-Clot, M., Tina, G. M. & Nizetic, S. Floating photovoltaic plants and wastewater basins: an Australian project. Energy Procedia 134, 664–674 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lee, N. et al. Hybrid floating solar photovoltaics-hydropower systems: benefits and global assessment of technical potential. Renew. Energy 162, 1415–1427 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kumar, A. & Kumar, M. Experimental validation of performance and degradation study of canal-top photovoltaic system. Appl. Energy 243, 102–118 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kumar, M. & Kumar, A. Performance assessment of different photovoltaic technologies for canal-top and reservoir applications in subtropical humid climate. IEEE J. Photovolt. 9, 722–732 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kahn, M. & Longcore, T. A Feasibility Analysis of Installing Solar Photovoltaic Panels Over California Water Canals (UCLA, 2014).

  17. 17.

    Colmenar-Santos, A., Buendia-Esparcia, Á., de Palacio-Rodríguez, C. & Borge-Diez, D. Water canal use for the implementation and efficiency optimization of photovoltaic facilities: Tajo–Segura transfer scenario. Sol. Energy 126, 168–194 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sahu, A., Yadav, N. & Sudhakar, K. Floating photovoltaic power plant: a review. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 66, 815–824 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hernandez, R. R. et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 29, 766–779 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cazzaniga, R. et al. Floating photovoltaic plants: performance analysis and design solutions. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 81, 1730–1741 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Bryant, B. P. et al. Shaping land use change and ecosystem restoration in a water-stressed agricultural landscape to achieve multiple benefits. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 138 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Grodsky, S. M. & Hernandez, R. R. Reduced ecosystem services of desert plants from ground-mounted solar energy development. Nat. Sustain. 3, 1036–1043 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bureau of Reclamation Fundamental Considerations Associated with Placing Solar Generation Structures at Central Arizona Project Canal (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016).

  24. 24.

    Kougias, I. et al. The potential of water infrastructure to accommodate solar PV systems in Mediterranean Islands. Sol. Energy 136, 174–182 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Augustin, D., Chacko, R. & Jacob, J. Canal top solar PV with reflectors. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES) 1–5 (IEEE, 2016).

  26. 26.

    Sairam, P. M. N. & Aravindhan, A. Canal top solar panels: a unique nexus of energy, water, and land. Mater. Today Proc. 33, 705–710 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Over Water (P4P Energy, 2019);

  28. 28.

    Canal Top Solar PV Projects (Punjab Energy Development Agency, 2020);

  29. 29.

    Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R. & Dettinger, M. D. Sources of variability of evapotranspiration in California. J. Hydrometeorol. 6, 3–19 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Baldocchi, D., Dralle, D., Jiang, C. & Ryu, Y. How much water is evaporated across California? A multiyear assessment using a biophysical model forced with satellite remote sensing data. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2722–2741 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Evaporation from Water Surfaces in California Bulletin 73-79 (California Department of Water Resources, 1979).

  32. 32.

    Craig, I., Green, A., Scobie, M. & Schmidt, E. Controlling Evaporation Loss from Water Storages Publication No 1000580/1 (National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, 2005).

  33. 33.

    Perez, R. et al. A new operational model for satellite-derived irradiances: description and validation. Sol. Energy 73, 307–317 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Drury, E., Denholm, P. & Margolis, R. M. The Impact of Different Economic Performance Metrics on the Perceived Value of Solar Photovoltaics Technical report no. NREL/TP-6A20-52197 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2011).

  35. 35.

    Hernandez, R. R. et al. Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2, 560–568 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Da Silva, Pimentel, Diogo, Gardenio & Branco, D. A. C. Is floating photovoltaic better than conventional photovoltaic? Assessing environmental impacts. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 36, 390–400 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Ravi, S. et al. Colocation opportunities for large solar infrastructures and agriculture in drylands. Appl. Energy 165, 383–392 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Niblick, B. & Landis, A. E. Assessing renewable energy potential on United States marginal and contaminated sites. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 489–497 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Majumdar, D. & Pasqualetti, M. J. Analysis of land availability for utility-scale power plants and assessment of solar photovoltaic development in the state of Arizona, USA. Renew. Energy 134, 1213–1231 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Gorman, W., Mills, A. & Wiser, R. Improving estimates of transmission capital costs for utility-scale wind and solar projects to inform renewable energy policy. Energy Policy 135, 110994 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Pitt, D. & Michaud, G. Assessing the value of distributed solar energy generation. Curr. Sustain. Renew. Energy Rep. 2, 105–113 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Friedrich, K. et al. Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: current science, challenges, and future needs. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 99, 167–187 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Diffenbaugh, N. S., Swain, D. L. & Touma, D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3931–3936 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Baldocchi, D. & Waller, E. Winter fog is decreasing in the fruit growing region of the Central Valley of California. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3251–3256 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kumar, M., Kumar, A. & Gupta, R. Comparative degradation analysis of different photovoltaic technologies on experimentally simulated water bodies and estimation of evaporation loss reduction. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 29, 357–378 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Coyle, D. J. Life prediction for CIGS solar modules part 1: modeling moisture ingress and degradation. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 21, 156–172 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Jordan, D. C. & Kurtz, S. R. Photovoltaic degradation rates—an analytical review. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 21, 12–29 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Lund, J., Medellin-Azuara, J., Durand, J. & Stone, K. Lessons from California’s 2012–2016 drought. J. Water Res. Plan. Man. ASCE 144, 4018067 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Christian-Smith, J. et al. Maladaptation to drought: a case report from California, USA. Sustain. Sci. 10, 491–501 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Pauloo, R. et al. Domestic well vulnerability to drought duration and unsustainable groundwater management in California’s Central Valley. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 44010 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Jasechko, S. & Perrone, D. California’s Central Valley groundwater wells run dry during recent drought. Earth’s Future 8, e2019EF001339 (2020).

  52. 52.

    Grantham, T. E. & Viers, J. H. 100 years of California’s water rights system: patterns, trends and uncertainty. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 084012 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Nelson, K. S. & Burchfield, E. K. Effects of the structure of water rights on agricultural production during drought: a spatiotemporal analysis of California’s Central Valley. Water Resour. Res. 53, 8293–8309 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Escriva-Bou, A., McCann, H., Hanak, E., Lund, J. & Gray, B. Accounting for California water. Calif. J. Politics Policy 8, 1–26 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Hoffacker, M. K., Allen, M. F. & Hernandez, R. R. Land-sparing opportunities for solar energy development in agricultural landscapes: a case study of the Great Central Valley, CA, United States. Environ. Sci. Tech. 51, 14472–14482 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, accessed January 2016);

  57. 57.

    Valiantzas, J. D. Simplified versions for the Penman evaporation equation using routine weather data. J. Hydrol. 331, 690–702 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Wilcox, S. National Solar Radiation Database 1991–2010 Update: User’s Manual Technical report no. NREL/TP-5500-54824 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).

  59. 59.

    Collins, W. D. et al. The community climate system model version 3 (CCSM3). J. Clim. 19, 2122–2143 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Solar Insolation (1 Month) (NASA Earth Observations, 2016);

  61. 61.

    Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Historical Climate Information (Western Regional Climate Center, 2016);

  63. 63.

    Carpenter, L. G. The Loss of Water from Reservoirs by Seepage and Evaporation Bulletin No. 45 (State Agricultural College, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1898).

  64. 64.

    Jensen, M. E. Estimating Evaporation from Water Surfaces. In Proceedings of the CSU/ARS Evapotranspiration Workshop, Fort Collins, CO 1–27 (ASCE, 2010).

  65. 65.

    Hart, Q. J. et al. Daily reference evapotranspiration for California using satellite imagery and weather station measurement interpolation. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 26, 19–33 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Reference Evapotranspiration Zones (California Irrigation Management Information System, accessed January 2016);

  67. 67.

    Fu, R., Feldman, D. & Margolis, R. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark Q1 2018 Technical report no. NREL/TP-6A20-72399 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019).

  68. 68.

    Horowitz, K. A. et al. Estimating the Effects of Module Area on Thin-Film Photovoltaic System Costs Conference paper NREL/CP-6A20-68506 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018).

  69. 69.

    Ave, K. Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) Proposal for Folsom South Solar Canal Project, WaterSMART: Water and Efficiency Grants for FY2015 (SMUD, 2015).

  70. 70.

    Gerstle, B., Allbright, M., Lee, C. & Iklé, J. 2019 Padilla Report: Costs and Cost Savings for the RPS Program (Public Utilities Code §913.3) (California Public Utilities Commission, 2019).

  71. 71.

    How to Calculate PV Performance Ratio and PV Performance Index (Hukseflux Thermal Sensors, accessed August 2020);

  72. 72.

    Greenfield, B. K., Blankinship, M. & McNabb, T. J. Control costs, operation, and permitting issues for non-chemical plant control: case studies in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Region, California. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 44, 40–49 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements and Fees (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019);

  74. 74.

    UC Cooperative Extension Aquatic Weed and Algae Control (University of California, 2010).

  75. 75.

    Medellín-Azuara, J. et al. Cost of Ecosystem Management Actions for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta (Public Policy Institute of California, 2013).

  76. 76.

    McKuin, B. et al. Energy and water co-benefits from covering canals with solar panels datasets. (Dryad Digital Repository, 2021);

  77. 77.

    McMurray, A., Pearson, T. & Casarim, F. Guidance on Applying the Monte Carlo Approach to Uncertainty Analysis in Forestry and Greenhouse Gas Accounting (Winrock International, 2017).

  78. 78.

    Canty, A. & Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions (R package version 1.3-25, 2020).

  79. 79.

    Emission Inventory Methodology, Agricultural Irrigation Pumps – Diesel (California Air Resources Board, 2006).

  80. 80.

    Burt, C., Howes, D. & Wilson, G. California Agricultural Water Electricity Requirements ITRC Report no. CEC-400-2005-002 (Irrigation Training and Research Center, 2003).

Download references


We thank R. Raj and J. Harris for coordinating stakeholder meetings, R. Winston and S. Kurtz for helpful discussions on solar canal development and J. T. Watson for helpful comments on the accessibility of the article to scientists across the broader sustainability scholarship. We thank NRG Energy for support. R.B. and T.P. were funded by the USDA (National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant 2018-67004-24705). J.H.V. was funded by the US Department of Energy US–China Clean Energy Research Center for Water-Energy Technologies (DE-IA0000018).

Author information




J.E.C., R.B., J.H.V. and T.P. designed the study. B.M., A.Z. and J.T. conducted the analysis. B.M., A.Z., J.T. and J.E.C. wrote the initial draft. J.E.C., R.B., J.H.V. and T.P. contributed to methodological refinements and conceptual considerations. All authors contributed to completion of the manuscript through comments and edits of the text and figures.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Brandi McKuin or J. Elliott Campbell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Michael Brady, Giuseppe Tina and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–5, Tables 1–24, Discussion and Methods.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Source Data for Supplementary Fig. 1: QGIS project files (Supplementary_Fig_1a.qgs, Supplementary_Fig_1b.qgs) and associated shapefiles.

Supplementary Data 2

Source Data for Supplementary Fig. 2: Rstudio file (Supplementary_Fig_2.R) and .csv file.

Supplementary Data 3

Source Data for Supplementary Fig. 3: Rstudio file (Supplementary_Fig_3.R) and .csv file.

Supplementary Data 4

Source Data for Supplementary Fig. 4: Rstudio file (Supplementary_Fig_4.R) and .csv file.

Supplementary Data 5

Source Data for Supplementary Fig. 5: Rstudio files (Supplementary_Fig_5a.R, Supplementary_Fig_5b.R) and .csv files.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

QGIS project file (Fig_1.qgs), folders containing associated shapefiles, .csv file.

Source Data Fig. 2

Alternative versions of Fig. 2 in .eps and .svg file formats. Note that there is no source data associated with the figure because it is a drawing/flow chart.

Source Data Fig. 3

QGIS project files (Fig3a.qgs, Fig3b.qgs, Fig3c.qgs), associated shapefiles and alternative version of Fig. 3 in.eps file format.

Source Data Fig. 4

RStudio files (Fig4a.R, Fig4b.R), .csv files and alternative version of Supplementary Fig. 4 in .eps file format.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McKuin, B., Zumkehr, A., Ta, J. et al. Energy and water co-benefits from covering canals with solar panels. Nat Sustain 4, 609–617 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing