good idea
maybe even better than asking the tax assessors
also i keep bumping into references to a so called
adjustment of 1912
performed on the bois de sioux river bed
possibly in conjunction with a regional wetlands to farmlands
program
so thats my present best guess as to the date & cause of the
mnndsd position indicated on the topo
as well as the year i would begin looking into
wherever & however actually proceeding on this search
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@b...>
> 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/
> >
> >
> >