Your analysis is good. However, I think someone would have noticed
the avulsion, regardless of when it occurred, because I think it must
have been man-made. Assuming a pre-avulsion line at the position
shown on the topo map, I don't see enough "incentive" in the form of
tightly curved banks for the river to naturally assume its new course.
Strangely enough, south of the road between White Rock and Boisberg
(i.e. 1 mile south of the tri-point) my USACE maps show the pre-1937
river course exactly corresponding to the USGS state line (and
Sisseton Indian Reservation boundary). The then-proposed channel
improvement corresponds exactly with the USGS-depicted river.
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> easy there old pal
> unless you get your kicks by kicking yourself
> for we have all the time in the world to reach the truth
>
> & thank goodness there are still a few wild points left like this
> where we do have somewhere to go
>
>
> most of the references to the 1912 programs i have seen on the
> internet elude me at the moment
> but a google search under the phrase
> adjustment of 1912
> yields a few stray mentions in the right neighborhood
>
> however
> in the meantime i have changed my best guesses for the damn
> freezing avulsion from 1912 & the period between 1858 & 1869
> to the period between 1869 & 1891 only
> for the following reasons
>
> further study of the 1869 sisseton indian reservation boundary
> that apparently hews to the same former thalweg as the usgs
> tristate point
> leads me to correct my earlier surmise of a pre 1869 avulsion to
> a post 1869 avulsion
> for i now realize that the earlier dating was only a mental blunder
> seeing as the reservation boundary along the river must have
> moved with the territorial boundary for a time until both were
> frozen by the same avulsion
> which thus couldnt have happened earlier than 1869
>
> & this is frankly a bit of a relief because the whole area remained
> pretty much a howling wilderness right thru that earliest period
> & the notion that anyone would have even noticed a freezing
> avulsion there between 1858 & 1869 was straining my own
> belief
>
>
> but in addition
> just to trim the other end of the guessing range
> the public land system survey in that neighborhood appears
> from all the evidence to have been performed subsequent to the
> 1869 reservation delineation but previous to the 1891 ndsd
> survey
> & also shows signs of having been split by the old river channel
> rather than by the present one
> & these combined data would force the damn freezing date back
> before 1891
>
>
> so until & unless we arrive at the definitive answer
> your just touching both of the prospective tripoint positions next
> weekend will probably be good enough for the best class b visit
> here since 1891
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
> <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > You're right, an avulsion at any time after 1858 could account
> for the
> > USGS line, assuming that was the accreted boundary position
> at the
> > time of the avulsion. I just checked BUS&SS. It simply states
> that
> > "The first mark was placed 9 chains west of the Bois des Sioux
> River
> > bed", and makes no claim that the river was or was not the
> actual or
> > presumed DAMN boundary.
> >
> > I am intrigued by the 1912 program you mentioned. My USACE
> maps of
> > 1937 indicate that extensive reclamation work had been done
> earlier,
> > partially resulting in Traverse Lake and other features. Where
> did
> > you find information about this?
> >
> > And, finally, I am kicking myself for not arranging my trip to put
> me
> > in Wheaton on a weekday when I could more easily check
> records. Damn!
> >
> > BJB
> > --- 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/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >