Subject: Re: mnndsd ideas
Date: Jul 15, 2003 @ 16:48
Author: bjbutlerus ("bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> 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/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >