Subject: Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss discovered
Date: Jan 24, 2002 @ 02:41
Author: bjbutlerus ("bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> key largo fl
>
> thanx brian
> & more below
>
> >From: "bjbutlerus" I have sent a fairly detailed request to the US
Army
> >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.
>
> great
> this is world class punctology
> which btw is what i think bp is about at its best
>
> If available this map might show the
> >riverbed just prior to the "avulsion".
>
> yes
> it might be available
> & it might show their avulsion
> if indeed they made one
> for they might also have simply been reinforcing the existing or
dominant
> bed here while backfilling any potential competition from all lesser
> channels or relict beds
>
> it does at least seem from my own recollection of the site as well
as from
> the usgs depiction at topozone 25k scale that the old river bed
usgs places
> mnndsd in today no longer exists
> compliments probably of usace
>
> Since meanders become more
> >acute until they finally break through and form a horseshow lake,
the
> >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.
>
> i agree with your premise & probably your conclusion too
> but dont see how the one follows the other
> yet perhaps no matter
> but i am running out of time at this computer
> so i will have to continue later
> but please respond or add in if you like
>
> m
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I have not even
> >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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com