The most negative thing I see in that article: > At some point, the costs associated with conserving an additional drop of water exceed the benefits,” she says

The most negative thing I see in that article: > At some point, the costs associated with conserving an additional drop of water exceed the benefits,” she says. But, she notes, if solar expansion is inevitable, then maybe hanging the panels over canals could tack on some extra benefits that might not come from building elsewhere. Which is only counting part of a positive, and excluding the value of the electricity. > cheap land elsewhere Not really sure where that's going to be in California, what are you thinking? And then if you use distant land, you have to pay for new transmission, which dwarfs the costs of solar panels and inverters. Solar hardware is incredibly cheap these days, and getting cheaper by the day. Putting solar panels instead of non-generating materials will miss out on all the benefits of how cheap solar PV has become. We should think about PV panels a lot like microcontrollers: so cheap that they can be thrown into all sorts of applications that would have been shocking 20-30 years ago.