Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss discovered
Date: Jan 23, 2002 @ 22:06
Author: m donner ("m donner" <maxivan82@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: "bjbutlerus" I have sent a fairly detailed request to the US Armygreat
>Corps of
>Engineers in the MN-ND-SD district in an attempt to locate some
>engineering plans for the Bois de Sioux project that possibly changed
>the course of the river.
>riverbed just prior to the "avulsion".yes
>acute until they finally break through and form a horseshow lake, thei agree with your premise & probably your conclusion too
>position of the river mid-channel along the current ND-SD line just
>prior to the avulsion would be the tri-point according to legal
>principles we have discussed here.
>received a confirmation that the USACE received my message and it has_________________________________________________________________
>been a couple of days.
>
>BJB
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > thanxx to your several recent theories & other new info
> > i have substantially revised my own mnndsd guess
> >
> > in fact much of my 1858 to 2002 chronology guess is now smithereens
> > tho its basic idea of benign neglect & sublime ignorance is
>unchanged
> >
> > & i no longer agree with my former opinion that it isnt worth
>talking
> > about without proof
> > for that was a folly anyway
> >
> > it is always worth talking if it feels good
> >
> > m
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > truth
> > > good luck
> > > m
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to
>bus&ss
> > > >discovered
> > > >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:03:48 -0000
> > > >
> > > >Truce. I will try to get the proof.
> > > >BJB
> > > >
> > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus"
> > > > >
> > > > > >Sorry if I made you feel insecure.
> > > > >
> > > > > & silly of me not to understand why you think in these terms
> > > > > for i would rather be silly than sorry insecure etc
> > > > >
> > > > > & it is of course ones own thought that primarily makes one
>feel
> > > > > not anothers
> > > > >
> > > > > m
> > > > >
> > > > > & you are the accredited geologist here
> > > > > so i am listening to you closely about all that loam
> > > > > for i am only a punctologist
> > > > >
> > > > > but yes please do give me the proof
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >The facts from BUS&SS that you mention are the very ones I
>am
> > using in
> > > > > >my hypothesis. We have a difference of opinion as to
>whether
> > the Bois
> > > > > >de Sioux could produce a meander of approximately 450 feet
> > over the
> > > > > >course of 110 years (or less, depending when the river was
> > > > > >channelized). The soil in that area is loamy and not
> > particularly
> > > > > >resistant, so I think a meander of that size would be quite
> > possible.
> > > > > >Further evidence is provided by the other meanders north and
> > south of
> > > > > >the one in question. The pattern is unmistakably that of a
> > meandering
> > > > > >river.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >But are right about needing further information to reach a
> > conclusion.
> > > > > > I am trying to get some details about where the river
>flowed
> > just
> > > > > >prior to being straightened.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >BJB
> > > > > >
> > > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > brian
> > > > > > > i know you have offered this opinion before
> > > > > > > nor did i disagree out loud a second time by offering
>these
> > new
> > > >sources
> > > > > > > because you already heard me once
> > > > > > > so this time i will only note 2 facts from bus&ss p4f
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1
> > > > > > > when bed & channel are changed by the natural & gradual
> > processes
> > > > > >known as
> > > > > > > erosion & accretion the boundary follows the varying
>course
> > of the
> > > > > >stream
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2
> > > > > > > if the stream from any cause natural or artificial
>suddenly
> > leaves
> > > > > >its old
> > > > > > > bed & forms a new one
> > > > > > > by the process known as avulsion
> > > > > > > the resulting change of channel works no change of
>boundary
> > > > > > > which remains in the middle of the old channel tho no
>water
> > may be
> > > > > >flowing
> > > > > > > in it
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > now i believe a stream of this small size couldnt
>possibly
> > have
> > > > > >accreted
> > > > > > > anywhere near so much as you believe it has
> > > > > > > namely several times its own width
> > > > > > > even in these 11 decades
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > if streams could routinely sneak around that way they
> > wouldnt make
> > > > > >very good
> > > > > > > boundaries
> > > > > > > & accretion would be a terrible problem
> > > > > > > which it generally isnt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > yet somehow usgs has gotten the idea that mnndsd has
>moved
> > > > > > > & this cant be entirely ignored or poopooed until we know
> > for sure
> > > > > >why they
> > > > > > > think this
> > > > > > > but in the meantime i think they probably mistook an
> > avulsion or
> > > > > >work of man
> > > > > > > for an accretion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > remember
> > > > > > > except for only the very minor inching of accretions
> > > > > > > only a supreme court decision or act of congress could
> > actually make
> > > > > >the
> > > > > > > tripoint move
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so i continue to think mnndsd will be found basically
> > unmoved
> > > > > > > & moreover since the witness rock pinpoints it
> > > > > > > this tripoint might be uniquely empowered to withstand
>even
> > > >accretion
> > > > > > > & thus remain absolutly unmoved even despite accretion
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > in any case it will be interesting to see how far the 9
> > chains fall
> > > > > >from the
> > > > > > > thalweg today
> > > > > > > & then we can see what there is to argue about
> > > > > > > probably very little
> > > > > > > because tho i myself reached & identified this usgs
>mnndsd
> > position
> > > > > >first i
> > > > > > > still just cant see it as even being worth talking about
> > > > > > > unless substantiated by something real
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > m
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement
> > to bus&ss
> > > > > > > >discovered
> > > > > > > >Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:31 -0000
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Except, of course, for the unratified means of erosiion
>and
> > > > > > > >accretion. I still like the hypothesis that MNNDSD
>moved
> > gradually
> > > > > > > >from the point 9 chains east of the nearby witness
> > monument to the
> > > > > > > >position shown on the topo map (or thereabouts) and was
> > then frozen
> > > > > > > >at that position by the man-made avulsion of
>straightening
> > and
> > > > > > > >leveeing the river. A possible discrepancy would occur
>if
> > the topo
> > > > > > > >map was not made at the time the river was rechanneled
>(a
> > likely
> > > > > > > >discrepancy). We really need to see the maps that were
> > used during
> > > > > > > >the construction project. Also, this hypothesis leads
>to
> > an
> > > >infinite
> > > > > > > >number of paleoMNNDSD points along the 9-chain line
> > segment east of
> > > > > > > >the witness monument.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >BJB
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if you are searching for a particular topic such as
> > mnndsd for
> > > > > > > >example then
> > > > > > > > > you can simply scan the list & see that the court at
> > least has
> > > > > > > >never ruled
> > > > > > > > > on any of the 3 interstate boundaries that terminate
> > there at
> > > > > > > >mnndsd
> > > > > > > > > & thus can conclude that if any change has occurred
>in
> > the
> > > >mnndsd
> > > > > > > >position
> > > > > > > > > since its creation it would have had to have been
> > approved
> > > >by the
> > > > > > > >only other
> > > > > > > > > possible means of ratification
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> > > > > > > http://www.hotmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > http://mobile.msn.com
>
>