drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics

drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> http://gg.gg/11fd1y <<< Download LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> http://inx.lv/9OuQ <<< Download PDF File Name:drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics.pdf Size: 3487 KB Type: PDF, ePub, eBook Uploaded: 6 May 2019, 14:29 Rating: 4.6/5 from 558 votes. Status: AVAILABLE Last checked: 19 Minutes ago! eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version In order to read or download drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics ebook, you need to create a FREE account. ✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account. ✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use) ✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied. ✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics The software is designed to automatically calculate the drainage area at each hydrologic concentration point in an existing HEC-1 input file. FLO-2D Web Access Tool Open the map Opens in New Window This map is intended for use by experienced engineers as a design aid for preparing site drainage and grading plans, and for establishing building lowest floor elevations for new structures. Users are strongly encouraged to consult with District staff or the appropriate governing agency prior to applying this information for the first time to obtain a clear understanding of the basis for the information and for guidance in its application. The map, however, is not an official document that may be used for floodplain determination. The information available are estimates of the peak discharge in cubic feet per second from designated storm frequencies, the dominate direction of that discharge, and the resulting peak water surface elevation on the NAVD 1988 vertical datum. The results are the average for each grid element. NSTPS Tool 1.0.0 Released: June 17, 2013 (Beta version) NSTPS Tool 1.0.0 is a software package designed to automatically update the NSTPS parameter (HEC-1 RS card's first field) for flow routing in channels in an HEC-1 input file. Drainage Design Management System The latest version ( Version 5.6.0 - August 2018 ), as well as prior versions and upgrade versions of the DDMSW, are available via this website for free download. The DDMS is a Windows tool that was initially developed as a pre-processing tool for HEC-1 modeling. Additional functionalities have been added; which include Storm Drainage Hydraulics and River Mechanics. Flood Control District Library Search through a variety of additional resources and manuals made available online on our Flood Control District Library. http://cowichanseniors.ca/userfiles/carrier-electronic-high-efficiency-air-filtration-system-manual.xml drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics, drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics online, drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics system, drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics association, drainage design manual for maricopa county hydraulics company. Commonly Downloaded Manuals Drainage Design Manual, Hydrology Opens in New Window Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulics Opens in New Window Drainage Design Manual, Erosion Control Opens in New Window Drainage Policies and Standards Manual Opens in New Window Best Management Practices Best management practices (BMPs) help control urban storm runoff by reducing runoff and improving water quality from storm events. BMPs include structural controls such as infiltration devices, ponds, filters and constructed wetlands, and non-structural controls such as maintenance practices, street sweeping, public education and outreach programs. View individual drawings of our Best Management Practices (BMP) as PDF files or alternatively, you can download the entire set of BMP Drawings Opens in New Window as DGN files. Hydraulics Manual - to provide criteria and design guidance for storm drainage facilities in Maricopa County. Erosion Control Manual - to provide guidance to agencies, municipalities, developers, property owners, engineers, contractors, and others involved with construction events to comply with the AZPDES (or the NPDES when seeking permit coverage within Indian country) stormwater permitting process for construction activities. This can not be undone. February 2011. If you require accessibility assistance, please contact us to Request Assistance. Note that the public comment period is now closed. http://hafsasamac.com/stock/carrier-edge-thermostat-installation-manual.xml Hiermee passen wij en derden onze website, app en advertenties aan jouw interesses aan. We slaan je cookievoorkeur op in je account. Als we je account op een ander apparaat herkennen, hoef je niet opnieuw de keuze te maken. Je kunt je cookievoorkeuren altijd weer aanpassen. Lees er meer over in ons cookiebeleid. The manual is not a textbook. Some methods have a more elegant development and basis in science than others, but all have been designed to solve practical problems in the field.Het is echter in een enkel geval mogelijk dat door omstandigheden de bezorging vertraagd is. Bezorgopties We bieden verschillende opties aan voor het bezorgen of ophalen van je bestelling. Welke opties voor jouw bestelling beschikbaar zijn, zie je bij het afronden van de bestelling. Many of the principles underlying the USBR system have been incorporated in the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation and in this bulletin. The purpose of this Chapter is to summarize the main features of the USBR system and highlight where this differs from the FAO system.There is no formal system for defining land utilization types as in the FAO Framework; instead these are implied in the plan formulation.This is important because irrigation projects generally involve costly inputs and improvements such as engineering works, irrigation and drainage networks, land clearing and levelling, and others. 10.1 Principles This recognizes that changes will occur in relationships between soils, water and crops as a result of irrigation and land improvements and that the classifier should use the classes to indicate whether these changes are likely to be favourable or unfavourable.The measure used is payment capacity, i.e. the residual available to defray the cost of water after all other costs have been met by the farmers.Thus the survey and classification are directed to determining which inputs and improvements to changeable factors are cost effective. http://schlammatlas.de/en/node/17800 Such land is called 'arable' (connoting a different meaning of the word to that in common usage). Arable lands constitute areas that warrant consideration for inclusion in a plan of development. Lands which are selected for inclusion in the plan of development are called 'irrigable' lands. This dual-stage procedure is copied in this publication in the successive classification of 'provisionally-irrigable' and 'irrigable' land. 10.2 USBR terminology For conditions in Western USA the productive area is about 3 to 6 less than the irrigable area because of non-productive land uses such as farm roads, farm laterals and drains, irrigation structures, fences, buildings, and feed lots.Arrangements for on-farm development costs and project repayment vary substantially among developing nations and, in contrast to the USA, are often not firmly established prior to project investigations. Therefore, since the ultimate classification of irrigable lands under an economically justified plan of development would be the same for the classes retained in the plan, whether the initial classification is based on farm financial analysis (farmer's repayment ability) or an economic analysis (irrigation benefits), it could be time-saving and appropriate for international situations to employ a uniform economic evaluation approach to land classification studies at the outset of investigations. Farm financial and project repayment considerations can be evaluated and arranged as may be necessary after an economically justified project plan has been formulated. This approach would simply reverse the order of accommodating the two principal concerns of irrigation suitability investigations, 'financial viability' and 'economic justification', from that employed by the US Bureau of Reclamation. In the end, essentially the same classification of 'irrigable' land should result from either approach. https://www.brainpads.com/images/c51pvgm-gb-manual-pdf.pdf The investigations may be of present land use, productivity, existing land development, farm water requirements, etc.The land of lowest quality that can be classified as 'arable' is specified as early in the investigations as possible. In the USA the minimum is prescribed by a law which states that irrigable lands shall be classified with respect to their power under a proper agricultural programme to support a farm family and pay water charges (Reclamation Law, 1924). Accordingly, the minimal quality lands have been defined as those capable of supporting a farm family and paying at least the annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs expected to prevail when the project comes into operation. Hence, in the initial arability classification land classes are an expression of relative differences in payment capacity - a financial rather than an economic measure.The application of economics to the project as a whole facilitates the principles of optimum design or scale, and net benefit maximization. In the case of multipurpose projects, the project plan may be formulated to allocate water to irrigation, hydroelectric power, municipal and industrial water supplies, and other purposes. The irrigable area is thus selected in relation to the water allocated to irrigation and to the size and location of the distribution and drainage systems.Typical adjustments include:Class ranges might be set at unequal or equal ranges of payment capacity e.g.Brief descriptions are as follows:These lands have a relatively high payment capacity.These are either adaptable to a narrower range of crops, more expensive to develop for irrigation, or less productive than Class 1. Potentially these lands have intermediate payment capacity.They are less suitable than Class 2 lands and usually have either a serious single deficiency or a combination of several moderate deficiencies in soil, topography, or drainage properties. http://g-ortho.com.br/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629b2db2a6281---cost-accounting-solution-manual-by-de-leon-2014.pdf Although greater risk may be involved in farming these lands than those of Class 1 and 2, under proper management they are expected to have adequate payment capacity.The deficiency or deficiencies are of such a nature and magnitude that special agronomic, economic, or engineering studies are required to resolve the costs or effect on the land. Class 5 designation is tentative and should be changed to either Class 6 or an arable classification during formulation of the recommended plan of development.Generally, Class 6 comprises steep, rough, broken, rocky, or badly eroded lands, or lands with inadequate drainage, or other deficiencies. In some instances lands considered to be Class 6 in one area may be arable in another area because of different economic conditions. In addition to various physical-type deficiencies that result in a non-arable classification, lands initially classified as arable (potentially irrigable) on the basis of payment capacity (farm financial analysis) may be found non-arable if subsequent economic analysis (benefit analysis) indicates that benefits from such lands are less than their costs in a plan of development. Thus, the lower arable class(es) of lands would be considered non-arable and, of course, non-irrigable for economic reasons. Thus, Class 1 land does not have subclasses, but other classes may be appended with the letters 's', 't', and 'd', singly or in combination to show whether the deficiency is in 'soils', 'topography' or 'farm drainage'. The basic subclasses of the land classes are s, t, d, st, sd, td and std.The other symbols may be used as required but the rules for their use are set up for each individual classification study; however, the rules must be consistently obeyed throughout any one study.Thus, in the example given, Class 2 relative productivity and Class 2 land development cost (symbol 22 in the denominator) results in an overall land class 3 in the numerator. www.demirdokumservisiankara.com/image/files/britony-system-plus-manual.pdf They can be further qualified with subscript numerals to indicate a range in character; e.g. k1, k2, k3 might indicate ranges of depth to gravel. 10.6 USBR land classification specifications Parameters established within land classes for the pertinent soil, topographic, or drainage factors should represent approximately the same range of influence in evaluating irrigation suitability. Thus the range of slope or amount of levelling selected for Class 1 land should represent about the same influence on suitability for irrigation as the range of soil depth or farm drainage requirement permitted in this class.Farm budgets are used to evaluate the relative impact of each selected physical characteristic on net income and as a basis for calculating the maximum permissible development cost for each of the arable land classes, as earlier described.Costs used for land development on this land include a nominal amount for ditches, diversion structures, farm drains, and smoothing; these costs are budgeted for all land classes. All other development cost estimates should reflect costs above the amount needed for the best quality land. As discussed in Section 10.3, the lower limit is also established.For example, the lower limit of arability in one project may be only half of the productivity required in another project due to lower water costs. Different physical specifications of Class 3 lands are then developed. Thus lower quality soil and rougher topography can be profitably used in areas having low cost water or where high value crops are to be grown. Specifications Book Details Imprint University Press of the Pacific Publication Year February Dimensions Width 18 mm Height 229 mm Length 152 mm Weight 454 gr Read More Have doubts regarding this product. Post your question Safe and Secure Payments. Easy returns. 100 Authentic products. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item. https://furkansigorta.com.tr/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629b2dc03a70c---Cost-accounting-solution-manual-by-de-leon.pdf Please try again.Please try again.Choose a different delivery location.The manual is not a textbook. Some methods have a more elegant development and basis in science than others, but all have been designed to solve practical problems in the field. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Bureau of Reclamation Books from the extended shelves: United States. Bureau of Reclamation: A 10-year study of creep properties of concrete. (Denver, Engineering Laboratories Branch, Design and Construction Division, 1953), also by J. A. Hanson (page images at HathiTrust) United States.Department of Water Resources. Division of Resources Planning (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Western Area Power Administration (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Accomplishments of irrigation, North Platte project, Wyoming-Nebraska: Report for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives. (Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1956), also by United States House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Addendum to guidelines for implementing principles and standards for multiobjective planning of water resources. (Washington: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1973) (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Agency for International Development (page images at HathiTrust) United States.Bureau of Reclamation: Agricultural development areas in region 3. (Boulder City, Nev.: Bureau of Reclamation, Region 3, 1949) (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. https://mognational.com/wp-content/plugins/formcraft/file-upload/server/content/files/1629b2dc49da9e---cost-accounting-raiborn-solution-manual-pdf.pdf Bureau of Reclamation: Agricultural drainage and salt management in the San Joaquin Valley: a special report including recommended plan and draft environmental impact report (Fresno, Calif.: San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program, 1979), also by San Joaquin Valley Interagency Drainage Program, California. State Water Resources Control Board, and California Department of Water Resources (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. State Water Resources Control Board, and California Department of Water Resources (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: All-American Canal lining project: environmental impact statement. (1994) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Allocation of water supply and long-term contract execution, central Arizona project: environmental impact statement. (2000) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Replacement Project: environmental impact statement. (June 2008) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: American Falls Dam replacement and powerplant: environmental impact statement. (1974) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: American River bridge crossing project, Folsom: environmental impact statement. (1996) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: American River Pump Station Project: environmental impact statement. (June 2002) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: American River water resources investigation, Placer County, Sutter County, El Dorado County, San Joaquin County: environmental impact statement. (1996) (page images at HathiTrust) United States.Natural Resources Conservation Service (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Anderson Ranch Powerplant, Unit 3: environmental impact statement. (1982) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. www.delhigurgaontrophy.com/userfiles/files/britony-sx-14-manual.pdf Bureau of Reclamation: ANG Coal Gasification Company, North Dakota project: environmental impact statement. (1978) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Angostura unit, contract negotiation and water management: environmental impact statement. (August 2002) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Animas-La Plata project (CO,NM): environmental impact statement. (1996) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Department of the Interior. Water and Power Resources Service (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Annual report. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O., 1902-) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Annual report. (Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1902-) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Annual report - Bureau of Reclamation. (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.), also by United States. Bureau of Reclamation. Extracts from the Annual report of the Secretary of the Interior relating to the Bureau of Reclamation and United States Reclamation Service. Annual report of the Reclamation Service (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Annual report of the Bureau of Reclamation. (Washington: G.P.O., 1923-1926) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Annual report of the Commissioner of Reclamation. (Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Office of Saline Water (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: An appraisal of geothermal resources in the Mid-Pacific region. (Sacramento: The Bureau, 1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Division of Ecological Services (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Colorado Cooperative Fishery Unit (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Arc-welding manual for the design and control of welded construction. Specialist supplement to the Reclamation manual. (Denver, 1950) (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Archer-Weld 230 kV transmission line: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States.Bureau of Reclamation: Arrowrock Dam outlet works rehabilitation: environmental impact statement. (October 2001) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge: environmental impact statement. (1997) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau Of Reclamation: Aspinall Unit operations, Aspinall Unit--Colorado River storage project, Gunnison River: environmental impact statement. (January 2012) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Department of Agronomy, and Colorado State University. Department of Economics (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Department of Entomology University of California (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Department of Water Resources. Division of Resources Planning and Sacramento River and Delta Water Association (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Department of Agricultural Economics (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Auburn-Folsom South Unit: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Banks Lake drawdown: environmental impact statement. (2004) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Battle Creek salmon and steelhead restoration project: environmental impact statement. (July 2005), also by H. Paul Friesema (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bibliography on natural and pozzolanic blended cements and related subjects; (Denver, Col., November, 1934), also by S. P. Wing (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Region 1, Colorado U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 6, United States. Bonneville Power Administration, and United States Army Corps of Engineers (page images at HathiTrust) United States. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Region (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Black Mesa coal mining, Navajo project: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States.Bureau of Reclamation: Boise federal reclamation project. United States Department of the Interior, Harold L. Ickes, secretary. Bureau of Reclamation, John C. Page, commissioner. (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1942) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Boise project, Black Canyon reservoir environmental evaluation, proposal for off-road vehicle use, 1976: environmental impact statement. (1976) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bonham and Cottonwood pipelines and Molina power plants, constructed 1959-1963, Collbran Project, Colo. Technical record of design and construction. (Denver, 1964) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bonneville Unit municipal and industrial system: environmental impact statement. (1979) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bonny Dam: technical record of design and construction: constructed 1948-1951, St. Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder Canyon project. (Denver, 1938-) (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder Canyon project. Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder Canyon project: final reports. (Denver, Colo., 1938) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder Canyon project, final reports. (Denver, Colo., 1940-) (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Final reports. (Denver, Col., 19) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Boulder Canyon Project, Final Reports. Part IV- Design and Construction. Bulletin (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Brantley project: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Buffalo Bill Dam modification, Shoshone project: environmental impact statement. (1981) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bulletin of information for Committee on Appropriations of House of Representatives, 64th Congress: Tour of inspection and examination of reclamation projects, June 1 to July 15, 1915. (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bumping Lake enlargement, Yakima project: environmental impact statement. (1979) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Laws (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Progress, United States. Division of Program Coordination and Finance, United States. Program Coordination and Finance Division, United States. Programs and Finance Division, and United States. Office of Programs and Finance (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Bureau of Reclamation project feasiblities and authorizations; a compilation of findings of feasibilities and authorizations. Bureau of Reclamation: Cachuma Lake, resource management plan: environmental impact statement. (May 2010) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Cachuma project contract renewal, water supply project, Santa Ynez Valley, Bradbury Dam, Santa Barbara: environmental impact statement. (1995) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: California undersea aqueduct reconnaissance investigation (Sacramento, Calif.: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 1973-75), also by John P. Soils engineering study Bara, Charles L. Marine geology study Howard, and Donald. Appraisal design and estimate for the offshore system Beard (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Canyon Ferry Dam and Powerplant: technical record of design and construction, Canyon Ferry unit, Missouri River Basin project, constructed 1949-54. (Denver: United States G.P.O., 1957) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Canyon-Ferry Lake dust abatement, Helena and Great Falls: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Cascade Irrigation District rehabilitation and betterment program: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Cascade land use management plan, Valley County, Finding of no significant impact (FONSI). (1982) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Cedar Bluff Dam, constructed 1949-1952, Missouri River Basin project; technical record of design and construction. (Denver, 1955) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Arizona project: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Arizona Project, regulatory storage division: environmental impact statement. (1984) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Arizona project water allocation: environmental impact statement. (1982) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central South Dakota water supply system (CENDAK), Pick- Sloan Missouri Basin program D; Cendak water supply system, Miller SD, by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering Inc.: environmental impact statement. (1986) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Utah project, Bonneville Unit: environmental impact statement. (1973) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Utah project, Jensen Unit: environmental impact statement. (1975) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley, Cosummes River Division: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley project, Contra Costa Canal: environmental impact statement. (1972) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 Implementation, Programmatic EIS: environmental impact statement. (Oct. 1999) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Department of Fish and Game, United States. National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (page images at HathiTrust; US access only) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley project long-term service contract renewals, American river division: environmental impact statement. (June 2005) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project, municipal and industrial water supply contracts, Sacramento County: environmental impact statement. (1998) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley project, San Felipe Division: environmental impact statement. (1976) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley project, state water project: environmental impact statement. (1986) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project studies. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; for sale by the Supt. of Docs. U.S. G.P.O., 1947-), also by Central Valley Project (Calif.) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley project studies. Problem 1- (Washington: United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1947-) (page images at HathiTrust) United States. Bureau of Reclamation: Central Valley Project studies; problem 24: economic effects. (Washington, D.C.: for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949) (page images at HathiTrust) United States.