Subject: Re: chnmtx chnmso aznmso
Date: Dec 27, 2003 @ 17:48
Author: acroorca2002 ("acroorca2002" <orc@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> Mike,good
>
> I'm glad to assist. I really enjoy this stuff.
>
> I will insert some thoughts below.
>rio
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 5:07 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: chnmtx chnmso aznmso
>
>
> > thanx lowell
> > you are a true friend to lay all this out for me so nicely
> > & i am glad to say i agree with you here more than i dont
> > but before getting into our differences
> > if there is time
> > let me just take a moment to emphasize that we are not just
> > talking about the correct locations of azbcca & chnmtx here
> > but those of fully 6 of the 8 actual tristate points of mxus
> >
> > also to note that these 6 fall neatly into 2 groups of 3
> > a westerly or drier triad
> > & an easterly or wetter triad
> >
> > so besides the distinctly similar azbcca & chnmtx we are talking
> > equally about azbcso on one hand
> > all 3 of which practically never see a real freshet
> > & on the other hand we are also talking about chcotx & conutx &
> > nutatx
> > all 3 of which do have the benefit of the wild new input of the
> > conchostripoints, but
>
> I've never attempted to search out the CHCOTX, CONUTX, and NUTATX
> I am personally familiar with the corresponding stretches of theRio Grande (as
> I know you are) and even the Rio Conchos. While the Rio Conchos isthe largest
> tributary of the Rio Grande, whatever wild freshets it contributeswould only
> affect CHCOTX. Its freshets, and those from the Pecos River andother mid-rank
> tributaries, are stopped cold by the Amistad Dam above DelRio/Ciudad Acuña.
> They do not reach CONUTX or NUTATX. This does not mean that themiddle and
> lower Rio Grande valleys are without huge freshets--primarily theresult of
> rains dumped by hurricanes and tropical storms. The Amistad andFalcón
> Reservoirs are designed with storage capacities well above theirnormal levels
> just to conserve such waters. I have somewhere on my computer (andcan't seem
> to find it) a web-cam view from Nuevo Laredo with tropical floodwaters raging
> inches under the roadway of International Bridge I. The FalcónReservoir
> captured that whole flood, with Brownsville/Matamoros getting not aripple.
>banks
> > these are 2 very different sets of conditions as i will explain
> > also if there is time
> >
> > but let me also hastily insert
> > since there is no free internet at all in this desert today either
> > & no more than an hour a day til jan 5
> > so my time is limited
> > & since i will probably be around here til at least then
> > etc etc
> > that i have been observing the rio closely
> > & i think what we have here & all the 3 dryer tripoints
> > is actually a double or triple set of vegetation lines
> >
> > the fairly continuous dry veggie lines at the base of the cut
> > say 100 yards apartthey found
>
> The Supremes agree! In New Mexico v. Texas (275 U.S. 279) in 1927,
> that the riverbed between banks along the fluvial boundary above ElPaso "had an
> average width of 300 feet."wow bullseye
>of
> > & the intermittent but distinct green veggie line near the edges
> > the actual stream channelarea between
> > say 10 or 20 yards apart
> >
> > & the underwater algae line at the actual wet edges of the
> > stream
> > say about 5 or 10 yards apart
>
> In the parts of the Rio Grande with which I am most familiar, the
> the edges of the actual stream channel and the cutbank is naturallyvegetated
> with cane.yes i think this probably reflects or underscores the distinction i
> whether vegetated or cleared. The cañada definitely floods, butwould not be
> part of the 1970 Treaty's "normal flow."since the
>
> > & all this is probably more or less the same
> > from truth or consequences down to presidio
> > & everywhere on azbc
> > with multiple channels btw being extremely rare in my
> > experience
> >
> > so there may be no absolute need to discuss anything with the
> > ibwc for any tripointing purposes as i see it
> >
> > not sure yet
> > still thinking this thru as i type
> > but i think i would simply mediate the extant stream channel on
> > the day of my visit
>
> That would be the correct definition of MXUS per the 1970 Treaty,
> boundary is the living middle of the channel.wait
>to the
> > ah well now
> > i really gotta see those maps now dont i
> > hahaha
> >
> > & islands with veggie lines are extremely rare
> > but to complicate things
> > there does appear to be a big one at chcotx to deal with
> >
> > but first where really is the chco vector
> > hahaha
> > etc
> >
> >
> > but i suppose there really is reason for me to visit the ibwc now
> > & not only for the maps
> > but to take the opportunity to also ask for that letter of intro
> > border patrol you have so brilliantly conceived for mewhy
> >
> > it would be tantamount to the marijuana passport i myself have
> > been wanting to create also
>
> Now, don't get too confident!
>http://tinyurl.com/2ba54 ) that
> > also about chnmtx in particular
> > i have turned up another contradiction in the bible
> >
> > for the nmtx vector it says under texas
> > flatly
> > midchannel
> >
> > but under nm it gives full details of a rationalized course of 105
> > markers
> > 2 of which i believe i have already visited at txwn & txw
>
> The Supreme Court determined in 275 U.S. 279 (
> the NMTX boundary was permanently frozen at the middle of the riverchannel as
> it existed on September 9, 1850, unaltered by any accretions oravulsions
> thereafter. Both states were in total agreement as to this point--their only
> disagreement being where the heck that was! It was the duty of theSpecial
> Master to sort out the historical evidence and make a map. Texashad the best
> evidence by far, and its view prevailed.mark this
>
> As Van Zandt tells us, a commisioner was appointed to survey and
> boundary (almost all of which is now dry). His work was confirmedby the
> Supremes at 283 U.S. 788 in 1931. Unfortunately, the web page thatshould
> contain that decree instead contains 283 U.S. 784 (which is aboutsome old
> lady's will and the IRS). The 105 concrete monuments mentioned byVan Zandt are
> presumably the work of this commissioner. If we had the decree,perhaps we
> could know how he marked the southern terminus of his line at MXUS.good
>either
> > so like the lost cowflops of azbcca we can perhaps expect a nmtx
> > marker 105 at chnmtx
> > whatever else the ibwc says
> >
> > & again a tripointing stitch is not out of the question here
>channel,
> Since NMTX was frozen in 1850, and MXUS is the living middle of the
> some sort of jog or stitch is a virtual certainty!
>
> > but i must run
> >
> > more later of course