Unwieldy was precisely the argument the Victorian high court judge used
against the idea that the top of the left bank of the murray is the
NSW/Victorian border. Which means a wharf starts in Victoria and extends
into NSW. But it turns out to be correct.
Austrlaia also has an undecided water body: the lenfgth of the Murray from
the NSW/SA boundary at 141deg east to the Vic/SA boundary which was meant to
be 141deg east, but ended up 2 miles too far west. Now as the NSW/Vic
boundary is the south bank of the Murray, where is the Vic/SA boundary for
the length of the Murray until it meets the main N-S part of the Vic-SA
border? No one knows. Topo maps state it is undefined.
The land north of that part of the urray is undoubtedly SA. The landd south
Vic. But what about the river? Does NSW continue dpown the river, between
top of the left and right banks? Does SA include the river? To the top of
the left bank, or only to the median lin,e or thalweg? Or does Vic own the
river?
More next week.
BW
>From: Arif Samad <fHoiberg@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] first try at a complete punctoscopy of canada
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Because it was tax season here, the computer was
>needed for tax preparation and I was thus lax at
>e-mailing or updating my page for the last month. It
>should most likely change.
>I want to put my two cents on the subject of Nunavut
>owning all of Hudson bay. Whatever the situation is,
>it is one of two improbable situations. So take a
>side on what you like. What we know is that all
>islands in Hudson, James and Ungava Bay belongs to
>Nunavut. Now if Michael is right, then all the island
>are enclaved in Canadian waters. Now that maybe
>technically correct, but have we thought of the
>consequences? Water level or silt buildup changes.
>What happens when a new island forms or an old island
>disappears. Does the enclave disappear only to maybe
>mystically reappear a few years later when water level
>changes again. Again that maybe technically correct,
>but I find that a little unwieldy. The other choice
>would be considering all water after the low tide
>level to be Nunavut. The problem there is that you
>could then technically dive from Ontario or Quebec
>land and land in Nunavut waters. Even weirder is the
>idea of a wet-dry tripoint existing near Killineq
>island. I know it is probably technically wrong, but
>I like the idea of picturing the whole area being
>Nunavut water. It is just so much easier to picture.
>Let the arguments begin.
> Arif
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com