Whenever the US federal government undertakes such works as mentioned below, it
has to obtain (either through negotiation or eminent domain) the necessary land
titles or easements from the private owners. Since land titles and easements
are held under state law, even when the federal government is a party, the
pertinent deeds would be recorded in the courthouses of the three counties.
They could be revealing, not only as to what the feds did to the river and when,
but also which states have jurisdiction where.
Lowell
----- Original Message -----
From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 7:52 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: mnndsd ideas
> Some time ago I thought the analysis you just presented would account
> for all known facts about MNNDSD, and that it could be verified by the
> USACE maps made prior to channeling and leveeing the Bois de Sioux. I
> was surprised to see, on those maps, that the river was in exactly the
> same position then as it is now. The date on those maps is circa
> 1930. The date on the witness monument is what, about 1890? I also
> believe an avulsion changing the river course from the USGS DAMN line
> to the current river course would have to be man-made because there is
> not enough curvature on the cut bank of the DAMN line to result in a
> natural avulsion. So, maybe we are looking for evidence of a
> paleo-straightening between 1890 and 1930, perhaps as a prelude to the
> more extravagant work performed by the USACE, and perhaps to rectify
> shifting boundary lines.
>
> BJB
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > also it may actually be useful to bear in mind here
> > the term
> > indefinite boundary
> > has a definite meaning
> > or rather at least 3 possible definite meanings
> >
> > either
> > a boundary that has been approximated because it has not yet
> > been officially surveyed
> > or
> > a boundary that has been approximated from outdated info
> > or
> > a boundary known to exist but for which accurate verification is
> > lacking
> >
> > in this case damn could belong to either of the latter 2 of these 3
> > categories
> > since it is known to have followed the bois de sioux thalweg
> > which was at the time of the first survey & may coincidentally now
> > be again exactly 9 chains or 594 feet east of the witness mark
> >
> > & that original thalweg could easily have accreted back to within
> > 80 feet of the witness mark as presently depicted by usgs
> > before being frozen there forever at the time of the first avulsion
> > subsequent to the monumentation
> >
> > & no matter whether it was a natural or manmade rechanneling
> > or if other avulsions followed it
> > etc etc
> > mnndsd was presumably frozen forever there & then
> >
> > but we & the usgs just havent yet been able to identify the
> > moment or circumstances of that supposed first avulsion
> > tho they continue to depict it as if it might be verifiable somehow
> >
> > & that is why i think we may find the county tax assessors quite
> > able to describe more or less exactly not only the geographic
> > proportions & results but even the exact circumstances & date of
> > that presumptive avulsion
> > since it was & is their business to keep track of such things
> >
> > & their data may therefore not only be as definitive as any that are
> > available anywhere
> > but they also stand a chance of validating & vindicating the usgs
> > tripoint depiction here
> >
> > in the meantime
> > i believe the most presumptive position we have
> > remains & is likely to continue simply as follows
> >
> > the fact that the usgs mnndsd position appears to fall 80 feet
> > east of the witness post along the trace of a historic channel
> > does strongly suggest it accreted there 514 feet westward from
> > its original position by the time the first avulsion froze it as
> > depicted
> > probably many decades ago
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
> > <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > > We have noticed it. In fact there are many examples of
> > "indefinite"
> > > state lines on the topo maps. I know of at least three state
> > > tri-points that are incorrectly depicted on the maps. Your
> > comment
> > > raises an interesting issue - is the boundary really indefinite, or
> > > did the USGS simply not know the definition when the map
> > was drawn?
> > > Boundaries seem to be the weakest element in USGS topo
> > maps, no doubt
> > > because they are imaginary features that don't show up on
> > aerial photos.
> > >
> > > BJB
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > Has anybody noticed that, along MNND about two miles
> > north of the
> > > tripoint and
> > > > along MNSD about 3.5 miles south, the same map says
> > "indefinite
> > > boundary"? This
> > > > is a disclaimer by the feds saying, "Hey, we only put this
> > dotted
> > > line were we
> > > > did because we had to put it somewhere. Don't take it to the
> > bank!"
> > > >
> > > > Lowell
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:00 AM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mnndsd ideas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > just noticed on the mnndsd topo
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/grbw
> > > > > wherever the elusive damn line & with it the tripoint may
> > actually
> > > fall
> > > > > today in terms of the ndsd line
> > > > > whether 594 feet east or 80 feet east or some other
> > distance east
> > > of the
> > > > > witness monument
> > > > > nevertheless
> > > > > in terms of the underlying public land system
> > > > > the tripoint will still fall along the south edge of a mnnd
> > > section & the
> > > > > north edge of a mnsd section
> > > > >
> > > > > these interstate sections btw & fyi are respectively
> > > > > section 34 of range 47 west in township 129 north
> > > > > to the north of the tripoint
> > > > > & section 3 of range 47 west in township 128 north
> > > > > to the south of the tripoint
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > so first i have to wonder if the 2 sections or subsections
> > > involved have
> > > > > ever been legally subdivided by the river
> > > > > or by the damn line
> > > > > if different
> > > > > to produce in either case 4 unistate parcels of land all
> > meeting
> > > at the
> > > > > tripoint
> > > > > or whether the public land sections or subsections involved
> > remain
> > > undivided
> > > > > by the damn line
> > > > > & produce interstate parcels of land merely sandwiching
> > the tripoint
> > > > > while continuing to incorporate & straddle the river &or the
> > damn line
> > > > >
> > > > > but more to the point
> > > > > i also have to wonder exactly how the county land offices
> > have
> > > distributed
> > > > > or delineated the affected sections for dividing up the tax
> > bills
> > > > > regardless of whether the acreages are split between
> > different
> > > landowners or
> > > > > merely allocated for the benefit of single landholders
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & since these 2 sections arent the only mnnd & mnsd
> > sections
> > > requiring such
> > > > > treatment
> > > > > they should not present obscure & difficult cases to
> > research
> > > > > but rather i would expect them to represent routine
> > instances of a tax
> > > > > allocation method that must be used all along the bois de
> > sioux
> > > > > where the public land sections are routinely divided by the
> > river
> > > > >
> > > > > so my guess is that the tax assessors will not be put out or
> > > embarrassed at
> > > > > all by our questions
> > > > > but will have the answers to them readily available for us in
> > > their standard
> > > > > verbal &or platted descriptions
> > > > >
> > > > > we simply need to ask in wheaton mn
> > > > > where is the sw corner of the mentioned section 34 in
> > minnesota
> > > > > & where is the nw corner of the mentioned section 3 in
> > minnnesota
> > > > > while making sure that it is indeed the same point they give
> > us
> > > > > & then to ask for the corresponding corners on the other
> > side of
> > > the damn
> > > > > line
> > > > > in wahpeton nd & in sisseton sd respectively
> > > > > which will incidentally be the same as ndse & sdne
> > respectively
> > > > > making them that much easier to refer to & identify
> > > > > but again
> > > > > being careful that there is indeed full agreement & a single
> > > geoposition
> > > > >
> > > > > & with any luck all these data should agree & may well be
> > > obtainable by
> > > > > phone
> > > > >
> > > > > but in any case what fun even if they dont agree or cant be
> > had so
> > > easily
> > > > >
> > > > > any thoughts
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > _______________
> > > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
> > FREE*
> > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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/
>
>
>