good luck
we have a practically identical situation at almstn
except it seems to have been answered by fiat here
a left bank alms line has simply been extended by the mapmakers down the
left bank past the almstn tristate point to produce a short extralegal
northsouth segment of the altn line
which is however by statute an entirely eastwest line
the similarly small legal gap occurring there might have been closed in a
variety of ways
but it seems as tho the flow of the river alone is what suggested the
resolution & somehow carried the line in peoples minds where it had to go
the usgs will not even take my questions about it seriously
m
>
>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/> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
><http://www.hotmail.com> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
>1015/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
>Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
>of Service.