another possible source of the difference between the usgs
tripoint position & the tripoint position suggested by the witness
monument could be an avulsion occurring not after but prior to
the ndsd survey
yikes
after all
the damn line had been a thalweg boundary here since
minnesota statehood in 1858
& the witness rock doesnt actually claim the tripoint is 9 chains
east
but only that the point of beginning of the survey is 9 chains east
& the surveyors may or may not have even known whether the
thalweg they identified in 1891 was the unavulsed & still
accreting original 1858 border thalweg
nor does the witness marker attest to the authenticity of the 9ce
position as a tripoint position then or at any time
obviously a damn freezing avulsion could easily have occurred at
this location at any time between 1858 & 1891
just as easily as the one suspected for 1912
& there is the added clue that the boundary of the sisseton
indian reservation created in 1869 also follows the same dry
former channel a few miles upstream from mnndsd
rather than the contemporary channel
so that could date the defining avulsion to between 1858 & 1869
yikes
not making an outright claim but some hard data to dismiss
& such a prior avulsion could just as easily be the source of the
alternate channel & tripoint depicted by the usgs topo
as any similarly hypothetical 1912 adjustment
& if a pre1891 foreclosure of damn by avulsion is found to have
actually been the case
then ndsde aka mnndsd was already fixed in the dry former bed
80 feet east of the witness rock even as the 9 chains were being
measured off across it
so if a pre1891 topo could be found already showing both beds
or any similarly definitive documentation
say in the land offices etc
then that alone might suffice to nail the tripoint position to the old
bed as depicted by usgs
even before the ndsd demarcation began by skipping across it
& such a bizarre eventuality cant be ruled out just because it
didnt occur to us for so long
for it might have been obvious at the time
at least to somebody
or might have been recognized as an unresolved issue then
tho forgotten today
indeed it might even solve the mystery of why the witness marker
is so enigmatic & noncommittal about what it is attesting to
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002"
<orc@o...> wrote:
> 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/
> > >
> > >
> > >