Investigating this topic has convinced me of one certainty: The IWBC and the
IBC are two agencies with little in common. The IBC's largest operation seems
to be brush-clearing of the boundary vista. The IWBC, on the other hand, owns
and operates dams, reservoirs, bridges, gauging stations, sewage and water
treatment plants, generating stations, etc. Oh, it also might have a little
something to do with boundary demarcation. As for being user-friendly, its web
site at www.ibwc.state.gov works like it was built by an adolescent learning
HTML. As for the texts of the treaties, it says that they "are available at
major libraries."
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: DEFRLU + BEDELU & eagle pass
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > I do not really think for one minute that the USA/Mexico
> boundary is anything
> > other than absolutely vertical. I agree with Acroorca that, IF the
> monuments
> > indeed fix the boundary on the bridge; then the boundary
> probably jogs away from
> > the ever-moving thalweg along the flanks of the bridge to reach
> the fixed
> > monumented point. The notion of any contortions out of the
> vertical are
> > patently ridiculous in the absence of specific treaty language
> (and would still
> > be bizarre even with it).
>
> i agree with acroorca too but here is what he may be missing
>
> the freakin iwbc is probably going to say to you lowell
> the thalweg rules on the ground & up to the upper surface of the
> bridge
> but the monument then causes the boundary to follow the right of
> way or the bridge edges out to the monumented transsection
> & since thats the way they probably see it & will probably call it
> that means
> de facto at least
> vertical differentiation of sovereignty
>
> & everyone will say de facto in such a case is as good as de jure
> & they will be right too
> for the prevailing perception however berserk is far more
> important than the reality
> in the illusion that we call reality
> of which more below
>
> > The US segments of bridges on the Rio Grande border tend to
> be owned by the
> > private sector or local governments. The State of Texas owns
> only one (at
> > Presidio), and the IWBC itself owns a few! Those that are
> privately owned (all
> > of the railway and some of the highway bridges) are subject to
> property
> > taxation.
>
> yes this is the saving grace acro hadnt anticipated
> a good & necessary reason to normalize & rationalize
> however ineptly
> this lurch & disjunction from normal reality
>
> > For that reason alone, it would be most practical to fix the
> boundary
> > on bridges. Additionally, the railways have federal authority to
> operate as
> > common carriers. If the US railway built, owns, and maintains
> the bridge to the
> > boundary monument, and if the connecting Mexican railway
> has the rest; what
> > happens then if the boundary moves southward with the
> accreting river. Private
> > property would not pass to the other party. That would leave a
> segment of track
> > in the USA that pertains to a railway not having common-carrier
> authority in the
> > USA. (In the several cases where Canadian and Mexican
> railways have and do own
> > huge amounts of track in the USA, it is done through US
> subsidiaries that do
> > have such authority).
> >
> > I, like Acroorca, would be most interested to learn where it is
> written that
> > IWBC bridge monuments trump accretions of the thalweg. I
> have been unable to
> > find any copies of the applicable treaties on the web. (It's
> almost as if the
> > feds were intentionally hiding them, but I know that they're
> published in
> > books.)
>
> maybe the feds of both countries
>
> & here is where they may take you for an interesting ride
> to the answer of another nagging question
>
> why is it that every monument on caus is geopintpointed &
> published online
> but scarcely a one on mxus
>
> could that have anything to do with all these embarrassingly fuzzy
> bridge lurches they might prefer to keep secret
> or to some other embarrassments we would like to know about
>
> end of insertions
>
>
> > I believe that the currently governing treaty would be that of
> November
> > 23, 1970. The treaties could very well provide for the joint
> survey of the
> > boundary and that monuments once established along the dry
> boundary AND AT RIVER
> > CROSSING POINTS and accepted by both sovereigns are
> fixed. We all know that
> > even an astronomically flawed demarcation of a dry boundary
> governs nevertheless
> > if it has been ratified by the parties.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:58 AM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: DEFRLU + BEDELU & eagle
> pass
> >
> >
> > > len
> > > of course this question refers only to the accreted sectors &
> not
> > > to the avulsed ones at all
> > > where there is no question the markers do rule
> > >
> > > & then if you do learn that the ibwc markers do indeed legally
> > > trump their corresponding thalweg position
> > > & i would think there is certainly a good possibility of this
> > > it will still be necessary to learn the path by which the
> boundary
> > > gets from the ground to the bridge
> > > or the presumption will remain that the bridge jog sector
> > > whether expressly or implicitly
> > > interrupts the thalweg boundary for the width of the bridge
> > > & along its edges
> > > but still without vertical differentiation of sovereignty
> > > just as we saw occurs by law in lithuania
> > >
> > > but please do continue the hot pursuit
> > >
> > > i am sure you are on to something big here
> > > if not a vertigal jog
> > > then at least the clear delineation of a fantastic illusion
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> > > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > > > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > > > I think the answers to the question of their being dry land
> > > areas
> > > > > within the DE-LUX condo will be answered when we see
> the
> > > > treaty text.
> > > >
> > > > i thought we already knew there are many such dry areas
> > > >
> > > > > I've ordered a copy of the book, and when I have digested
> it,
> > > I'll
> > > > > post whatever is there that exposes something.
> > > >
> > > > great
> > > >
> > > > > Also, sometime this week, I'll visit the Border
> Commission
> > > HQ
> > > > here in
> > > > > DC and ask if a drug runner or people smuggler is
> captured
> > > > under the
> > > > > bridge south of the border marker but on the north side of
> the
> > > > river
> > > > > if the person is in the U.S. or in Mexico at that point, and
> I'll let
> > > > > you know what they say.
> > > >
> > > > great
> > > > you are on the leading edge of this question then
> > > > which i think boils down to
> > > > where does it actually say
> > > > ibwc markers above the river trump the thalweg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It'll probably be some maneuver words, such as "we have
> a
> > > hot
> > > > pursuit
> > > > > agreement so the government needn't establish a
> precedent
> > > > by
> > > > > ascertaining the answer".
> > > > >
> > > > > LN
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
> > > > <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > > > > thanxx twice lowell
> > > > > > for even without having seen the maps
> > > > > > i am practically certain your analysis is correct
> > > > > > & just the latest on our long trail of busted claims
> > > > > > of vertically differentiated sovereignty
> > > > > > a topic most recently revisited & summarized in
> messages
> > > > 9963
> > > > > > 9971 9973 9974 9975 9985 9990
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & similarly your very interesting eagle pass observation
> or
> > > try
> > > > > > just like all the other bridge markers along mxus
> > > > > > is i think most probably overridden by the accretions of
> the
> > > > river
> > > > > > since the unavulsed rio border has been defined & oft
> > > > reiterated
> > > > > > as the living thalweg or middle of the deepest channel
> of
> > > the
> > > > rio
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & thus
> > > > > > unless there is some legal provision here that i am
> > > unaware
> > > > of
> > > > > > like the lithuanian one by which bridges & their markers
> > > > trump
> > > > > > thalwegs
> > > > > > or say one that makes even the misguided & unratified
> acts
> > > > of
> > > > > > the ibwc trump the treaty texts & the laws of both
> countries
> > > > > > then i think all mxus bridge markers are technically
> relict
> > > > even as
> > > > > > they are being installed
> > > > > > since they refer at best to the accurate thalweg position
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > past rather than actually marking the present legal
> reality
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & the fact that these markers are far more likely to be
> > > > observed
> > > > > > than the thalweg ever is
> > > > > > & are so official looking to boot
> > > > > > indeed because they are official
> > > > > > makes for a hilarious mass delusion
> > > > > > but not yet necessarily for vertically differentiated
> > > sovereignty
> > > > > >
> > > > > > usually the distances involved are so small &
> ephemeral &
> > > > the
> > > > > > practical distinctions so nonexistent that nobody
> notices or
> > > > cares
> > > > > > & i think that is where the matter presently stands
> > > > > >
> > > > > > however it does set up a situation in which the vertical
> > > > > > differentiation could eventually accrue
> > > > > > upon & above the bridges
> > > > > > by uti possidetis juris
> > > > > > if ever tested & adjudicated that way
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it is just that we have seen no evidence for this yet
> > > > > > & until there is
> > > > > > i think we have here & in many other places on the rio &
> in
> > > > the
> > > > > > world today illusory or fuzzy borders & the particular
> illusion
> > > of
> > > > > > differentiated vertical sovereignty
> > > > > > but not yet the actual fact of it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > > > McManus"
> > > > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > > L. A. Nadybal wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > a. There is a piece of land on the France-Condo
> > > border
> > > > in
> > > > > > white.
> > > > > > > According to the Legend, the pink is the joint
> sovereignty
> > > > area -
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > the piece of land is not in pink, not in Luxembourg
> proper
> > > > and
> > > > > > not in
> > > > > > > Germany proper, either.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, the map shows TWO such mystery areas:
> (1)
> > > The
> > > > > > end of the island that
> > > > > > > sticks from France into the condominium; and (2) the
> jetty
> > > > or
> > > > > > wing-wall that
> > > > > > > extends twice as far from the lock in France at the left
> > > edge
> > > > of
> > > > > > the lower map.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, I think these lands and the bridge as well are
> > > > within
> > > > > > the condominium.
> > > > > > > Notice that in the legend, the German and French
> texts
> > > > relating
> > > > > > to the condo are
> > > > > > > right beside the island and bridge. I think they're
> saying
> > > > that
> > > > > > everything
> > > > > > > between the pink dashed lines is condo (including
> > > > lavender
> > > > > > water and white lands
> > > > > > > and bridge). All dry DELU boundary lines and those
> > > > fronting
> > > > > > the condo are shown
> > > > > > > as pink dashed lines, and there are none around the
> > > white
> > > > > > island.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>