Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?
Date: Jul 22, 2004 @ 01:31
Author: Michael Kaufman (Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> I agree that no non-state land was created when the__________________________________
> CAUS boundary was moved from
> the theoretical 49th parallel to straight line
> segments between intervisible
> monuments. If the northern boundary of Idaho, for
> instance, had been specified
> as the parallel, then there might be a problem, but
> Idaho's northern boundary
> was specified upon its 1890 admission to the Union
> as "the boundary line between
> the United States and the British Possessions."
> Thus, if CAUS moves, so does
> the state boundary.
>
> The same is true along MXUS when the Rio Grande and
> the Colorado River accrete
> and avulse. If the US grows, so do the affected
> states.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:10 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land
> in USA that isn't in a State?
>
>
> > very interesting
> >
> > i dont think any stateless land is actually
> created by it tho
> >
> > rather i believe idwa must continue effectively
> due north the extra
> > half inch or so beyond the 1909 terminal marker
> vertex
> > until it reaches the caus sight line at true
> bcidwa
> >
> > this point is reached probably while still on the
> marker disk
> > but just north of its center point
> > if i understand you correctly
> >
> > & if that is right
> > then you have made & reported here the first
> monumental class
> > b visit in history
> >
> > which is a curious contradiction in terms
> > since class b was invented for unmarked points
> >
> > but i believe your novel findings have
> demonstrated that true
> > bcidwa is indeed an unmarked point upon the idwa
> terminal
> > marker
> >
> > & have done so with almost acupunctural precision
> to boot
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton
> [DCP]"
> > <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > > This is a theoretical question, just out of
> curiosity,
> > > but may not be hypothetical.
> > >
> > > By treaty, the Cananda/USA border along the 49th
> parallel
> > > is defined by straight lines between border
> monuments.
> > >
> > > It's my understanding that boundaries between US
> states,
> > > such as between Wahington and Idaho, are defined
> by
> > > the locations of monuments along those borders.
> > >
> > > Apparently, the monument that defines the
> intersection
> > > of the Washington/Idaho border with the
> Canada/USA border
> > > was incorrectly placed by the USGS in 1909,
> because they
> > > placed in on the parallel, which is a line with
> a slight
> > > southward curve, rather than placing it on the
> straight
> > > line between the two adjacent Canada/USA border
> > monuments.
> > >
> > > The difference is apparently very small -
> perhaps on the
> > > order of 1/2 an inch, but, at least
> theoretically, doesn't
> > > this create a small piece of land that is south
> of the
> > > Canada/USA border, and therefore is in the USA,
> but which
> > > is located north of both Washinton and Idaho?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dave Patton
> > > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
> > > http://www.confluence.org/
> > > My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>