Reservoir evaporation - Revision history

JeffreyJLukas at 21:32, 5 February 2025

2025-02-05T21:32:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 5 February 2025
Line 16:		Line 16:
	===[https://zeternity.users.earthengine.app/view/glev Global Lake Evaporation Volume (GLEV)]===		===[https://zeternity.users.earthengine.app/view/glev Global Lake Evaporation Volume (GLEV)]===
	The GLEV app is hosted on Earth Engine and provides evaporation volume time series estimates for lakes around the world. The app is generated by Gang Zhao (Stanford university) and colleagues, and has an open source [https://github.com/gzhaowater/lakeEvap GitHub repository] and a [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31125-6 peer reviewed paper] describing the app models and generation.		The GLEV app is hosted on Earth Engine and provides evaporation volume time series estimates for lakes around the world. The app is generated by Gang Zhao (Stanford university) and colleagues, and has an open source [https://github.com/gzhaowater/lakeEvap GitHub repository] and a [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31125-6 peer reviewed paper] describing the app models and generation.
			</onlyinclude>
	==Additional resources==		==Additional resources==

JeffreyJLukas: /* State of the Science Report */

2024-10-21T22:11:57Z

State of the Science Report

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 21 October 2024
Line 19:		Line 19:
	==Additional resources==		==Additional resources==

	===State of the Science ~~Report~~===		===[https://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/colorado-river-resources/CRBreport Colorado River Basin Climate and Hydrology: State of the Science report]===
	[https://wwa.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2021-06/ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_Chapter_5.pdf Chapter 5] of the State of the Science report details hydrology observations. Section 5.5 covers evaporation, evapotranspiration, and evaporative demand within the Colorado River.		[https://wwa.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2021-06/ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_Chapter_5.pdf Chapter 5] of the State of the Science report details hydrology observations. Section 5.5 covers evaporation, evapotranspiration, and evaporative demand within the Colorado River.

	===[https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs]===		===[https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs]===

JeffreyJLukas at 21:19, 18 October 2023

2023-10-18T21:19:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 18 October 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Overview==		==Overview==
			Reservoir evaporation is of great importance in the Colorado River basin due to the enormous magnitude of water storage and the surface area of the reservoirs; the ten largest reservoirs in the Colorado River basin, when full, have an aggregate surface area of about 650 square miles. Estimates of annual evaporation from all reservoirs in the basin are on the order of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf), or 10% of the river's annual average natural streamflow.

	Evaporation is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between a water ~~body~~ and the atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water ~~body~~. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity ~~each~~ lead to greater evaporation.		Evaporation from reservoirs is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between the water surface and the (usually dry) atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity all lead to greater evaporation rates.

	[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|550px\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]		[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|550px\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]

	While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about ~~one yard~~ across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs (accounting for 80% of the estimated annual reservoir evaporation) have measured evaporation data collected on site ~~and~~ 849 reservoirs do not have on site measurements.		While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about 3 feet across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs--accounting for 80% of the estimated annual Upper Basin reservoir evaporation--have measured evaporation data collected on site, while 849 reservoirs do not have on-site measurements.

	Lake Powell, located in the Upper Basin’s warmest and most arid region, is estimated to lose approximately 70 inches of water to evaporation per year, while Lake Mead, 2000 feet lower in elevation and even warmer and drier, loses about 80 inches per year, While evaporation rates at Mead are highest during summer, high rates persist long into the fall, and even in ~~midwinter~~ are about half of the summer peak. The combined evaporative losses from Lake Mead and Lake Powell, when full, are an estimated 1.135 (maf) annually. This is roughly equivalent to the annual beneficial consumptive use of Colorado River water (agricultural and municipal) within both Utah and Nevada.		Lake Powell, located in the Upper Basin’s warmest and most arid region, is estimated to lose approximately 70 inches of water to evaporation per year, while Lake Mead, 2000 feet lower in elevation and even warmer and drier, loses about 80 inches per year. While evaporation rates at Mead are highest during summer, high rates persist long into the fall, and even in mid-winter are still about half of the summer peak. The combined evaporative losses from Lake Mead and Lake Powell, when full, are an estimated 1.135 (maf) annually. This is roughly equivalent to the annual beneficial consumptive use of Colorado River water (agricultural and municipal) within both Utah and Nevada.

	Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses widely used in the Lower Basin. ~~Arizona stores much~~ of the CAP ~~project~~ water in aquifers.		Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses that is widely used in the Lower Basin. Much of the Central Arizona Project (CAP) water is stored in aquifers.

	~~==Relevance==~~
	Evaporation from reservoirs is of particular importance in the Colorado River basin given the magnitude of water storage and the surface area of the reservoirs; the ten largest reservoirs in the Colorado River basin, when full, boast a combined surface area of about 650 square miles. Estimates of annual evaporation from all reservoirs in the basin are on the order of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf), or 10% of the system-wide natural flow.

	==Data and tools==		==Data and tools==

JeffreyJLukas: /* Overview */

2023-05-16T15:07:55Z

Overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:07, 16 May 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Evaporation is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between a water body and the atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water body. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity each lead to greater evaporation.		Evaporation is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between a water body and the atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water body. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity each lead to greater evaporation.

	[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|~~700px~~\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]		[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|550px\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]

	While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about one yard across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs (accounting for 80% of the estimated annual reservoir evaporation) have measured evaporation data collected on site and 849 reservoirs do not have on site measurements.		While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about one yard across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs (accounting for 80% of the estimated annual reservoir evaporation) have measured evaporation data collected on site and 849 reservoirs do not have on site measurements.

TanyaPetach at 16:51, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T16:51:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 2 May 2023
Line 24:		Line 24:
	[https://wwa.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2021-06/ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_Chapter_5.pdf Chapter 5] of the State of the Science report details hydrology observations. Section 5.5 covers evaporation, evapotranspiration, and evaporative demand within the Colorado River.		[https://wwa.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/2021-06/ColoRiver_StateOfScience_WWA_2020_Chapter_5.pdf Chapter 5] of the State of the Science report details hydrology observations. Section 5.5 covers evaporation, evapotranspiration, and evaporative demand within the Colorado River.

	===Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs===		===[https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs]===
	Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs		Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs

	===Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021===		===[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021]===
	In situ monitoring data for Lake Powell evaporation in recent years can be found in a journal article by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Holman et al., 2022]: Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021		In situ monitoring data for Lake Powell evaporation in recent years can be found in a journal article by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Holman et al., 2022]: Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021

TanyaPetach at 16:50, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T16:50:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:50, 2 May 2023
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs		Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs

	===~~[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021~~ Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021]===		===Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021===
	In situ monitoring data for Lake Powell evaporation in recent years can be found in a journal article by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Holman et al., 2022]: Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021		In situ monitoring data for Lake Powell evaporation in recent years can be found in a journal article by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Holman et al., 2022]: Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021

TanyaPetach at 16:50, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T16:50:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:50, 2 May 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses widely used in the Lower Basin. Arizona stores much of the CAP project water in aquifers.		Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses widely used in the Lower Basin. Arizona stores much of the CAP project water in aquifers.


	==Relevance==		==Relevance==
	Evaporation from reservoirs is of particular importance in the Colorado River basin given the magnitude of water storage and the surface area of the reservoirs; the ten largest reservoirs in the Colorado River basin, when full, boast a combined surface area of about 650 square miles. Estimates of annual evaporation from all reservoirs in the basin are on the order of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf), or 10% of the system-wide natural flow.		Evaporation from reservoirs is of particular importance in the Colorado River basin given the magnitude of water storage and the surface area of the reservoirs; the ten largest reservoirs in the Colorado River basin, when full, boast a combined surface area of about 650 square miles. Estimates of annual evaporation from all reservoirs in the basin are on the order of 1.5 million acre-feet (maf), or 10% of the system-wide natural flow.


	==Data and tools==		==Data and tools==

TanyaPetach at 16:49, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T16:49:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 2 May 2023
Line 28:		Line 28:
	===Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs===		===Reservoir Evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs===
	Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs		Additional details about reservoir evaporation in the Colorado River Basin can be found in a journal article by [https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/99/1/bams-d-15-00224.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display Friedrich et al, 2018]: Reservoir evaporation in the Western United States: Current Science, Challenges, and Future Needs

			===[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021]===
			In situ monitoring data for Lake Powell evaporation in recent years can be found in a journal article by [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367272766_Evaporation_from_Lake_Powell_In-situ_Monitoring_between_2018_and_2021 Holman et al., 2022]: Evaporation from Lake Powell: In-situ monitoring between 2018-2021

TanyaPetach at 16:46, 2 May 2023

2023-05-02T16:46:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 2 May 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Overview==		==Overview==

	Evaporation is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between a water body and the atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water body. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity each lead to greater evaporation.		Evaporation is driven by the steep vapor pressure gradient between a water body and the atmosphere, and the available energy to liberate water molecules from the water body. Higher air and water temperatures, greater solar radiation, higher winds, and lower humidity each lead to greater evaporation.

	[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|700px\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]		[[File:Earp_moreo_reservoirEvap.png\|thumb\|700px\|Figure 1: Monthly mean evaporation at Lake Mead (blue) and Lake Mohave (red), Nevada and Arizona between May 2013 and April 2019, showing a strong seasonal trend. Evaporative losses at Lake Mead are generally higher than Lake Mohave due to the energy difference between the two reservoirs’ climates. (Adapted from [https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20211022 Earp and Moreo, 2021)]. ]]

	While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about one yard across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir ~~miles across~~ is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs (accounting for 80% of the estimated annual reservoir evaporation) have measured evaporation data collected on site and 849 reservoirs do not have on site measurements.		While direct measurements of evaporation can be obtained from an evaporative pan about one yard across, quantifying evaporative loss from a large reservoir is extremely challenging. Traditionally, pan evaporation readings have been used as a proxy for the larger water body (after adjustment by a coefficient), but this has been shown to be the least accurate method. More accurate methods use varying sets of in situ observations (specific humidity, air and water temperature, winds, net radiation) in equations that approximate the complex physics of evaporative loss in a natural setting; these methods include Eddy Covariance (EC), Bowen Ratio Energy Balance (BREB), and mass transfer. Reclamation has partnered with USGS (at Lake Mead and Lake Mojave; Figure 1) and with the Desert Research Institute (Lake Powell; ongoing) to compare these methods. In the Upper Basin, 11 reservoirs (accounting for 80% of the estimated annual reservoir evaporation) have measured evaporation data collected on site and 849 reservoirs do not have on site measurements.

			Lake Powell, located in the Upper Basin’s warmest and most arid region, is estimated to lose approximately 70 inches of water to evaporation per year, while Lake Mead, 2000 feet lower in elevation and even warmer and drier, loses about 80 inches per year, While evaporation rates at Mead are highest during summer, high rates persist long into the fall, and even in midwinter are about half of the summer peak. The combined evaporative losses from Lake Mead and Lake Powell, when full, are an estimated 1.135 (maf) annually. This is roughly equivalent to the annual beneficial consumptive use of Colorado River water (agricultural and municipal) within both Utah and Nevada.

	~~Lake Powell, located in~~ the ~~Upper Basin’s warmest and most arid region, is estimated to lose 45 inches~~ of ~~water to~~ evaporation ~~per year, while Lake Mead~~, ~~2000 feet lower in elevation~~ and ~~even warmer and drier, loses about 80 inches per year, While evaporation rates at Mead are highest during summer, high rates persist long into~~ the ~~fall~~, ~~and even in midwinter are about half~~ of ~~the summer peak. The combined evaporative~~ losses ~~from Lake Mead and Lake Powell~~, ~~when full~~, ~~are an estimated 1~~.~~135 (maf) annually. This~~ is ~~roughly equivalent to~~ the ~~annual beneficial consumptive use~~ of ~~Colorado River~~ water ~~(agricultural and municipal) within both Utah and Nevada~~.		Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses widely used in the Lower Basin. Arizona stores much of the CAP project water in aquifers.

	Given the magnitude of reservoir evaporation losses in the basin, and around the West, a number of ‘geoengineering’ methods for reducing these losses have been proposed, including covering reservoirs in thin films of organic compounds, or covering reservoirs in plastics or shades. Storing water in groundwater aquifers is a strategy for avoiding evaporation losses widely used in the Lower Basin. Arizona stores much of the CAP project water in aquifers.

	==Relevance==		==Relevance==
Line 15:		Line 17:

	==Data and tools==		==Data and tools==
	~~For data~~ and ~~tools pertaining to~~ evaporation~~, please see~~ the ~~[[Evapotranspiration~~ (ET)]] ~~page~~.		<onlyinclude>
			===[https://zeternity.users.earthengine.app/view/glev Global Lake Evaporation Volume (GLEV)]===
			The GLEV app is hosted on Earth Engine and provides evaporation volume time series estimates for lakes around the world. The app is generated by Gang Zhao (Stanford university) and colleagues, and has an open source [https://github.com/gzhaowater/lakeEvap GitHub repository] and a [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-31125-6 peer reviewed paper] describing the app models and generation.

	==Additional resources==		==Additional resources==

TanyaPetach at 19:53, 2 February 2023

2023-02-02T19:53:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 2 February 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:

	==Data and tools==		==Data and tools==
	For data and tools pertaining to evaporation, please see the [[Evapotranspiration]] page.		For data and tools pertaining to evaporation, please see the [[Evapotranspiration (ET)]] page.

	==Additional resources==		==Additional resources==