I remember doing legal research during graduate school in 1977 comparing the
laws of various states as to how or whether they allocate large waterbodies to
their counties. Michigan has a relatively odd approach: Since 1846, all
Michigan counties touching upon any one lake (Superior, Michigan, Huron, St.
Clair, and Erie) have had common criminal jurisdiction over that lake. However,
that does not mean that the county lines stop at the lakeshores. On the
contrary, they do extend through the lakes to the interstate or international
boundaries, sometimes having statutory turns and corners along the way.
Now, to address your question of contiguity: Microsoft STREETS & TRIPS is great
for showing the county boundaries of each of the Great Lakes states within the
respective lakes. It's very easy to tell which are contiguous with others on
the opposite shore. If you don't have this software, I will be glad to make you
and your fellow globbers an official list of what is contiguous to what--but it
might be a couple of days before I can get to it. Until then, good globbing!
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: <spookymike@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:39 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Contiguous Or Not Contiguous; That Is The Question
> My Yahoo U.S. county highpointing group is in the midst of a discussion that
> we have had before, with no consenus having been reached. One of things we do
> is visit the highpoints of contiguous counties and form large numbers of such
> [high point] visited, conitguous counties into "globs." Some of us have over
> 900 counties in such globs.
> The question arises, "What constitutes contiguousity?" Most of us agree that
> counties across even large rivers and bodies of water such as San Francisco
> Bay are contiguous, and maps exist showing contiguous boundaries. Where
things
> get dicey is in larger bodies of water, especially the Great Lakes. Some of
> our group feel that counties on opposite sides of Lake Michigan, for example
> are contiguous, and others reject that notion. Here is an excerpt of my most
> recent post on the subject:
> Quote
> ....the question of globability (think that word will make the next OED?)
> becomes valid, I believe, across very large bodies of water, of which the
Great
> Lakes are the most obvious. I just had a discussion with another highpointer
> who reminded me that state boundaries are clearly demarcated in the Great
> Lakes, and by extension, the areas in the lakes must belong to one county or
> another. For example, Cook County MN would be globable to Keweenaw County MI,
> reinforced by the fact that Isle Royale is in MI, and is not that far from the
MN
> shore of Cook County. One could make the argument that counties directly
> opposite each other on Lake Michigan are globable. Personally, I
agree......that
> we reach a point at which the "contact" between counties is so tenuous that I
> would not be comfortable globbing them. This led me to connect my completed
> counties in southern Delmarva from the north, rather than globbing them to
> already visited MD/VA counties across Chesapeake Bay.
>
> I remember some time ago that the U.S Government summarily enlarged the total
> area of many states by including the previously excluded area of large
> internal waters into total state areas. Michigan, for example, gained a huge
area
> of the Great Lakes, and jumped several notches in state area rankings. What I
> don't know is if the new areas were divided up among the counties, or simply
> added to the state total as a separate, non-county category. If the
> additional area was added to individual counties, then a map must exist
showing
> counties borders in the Great Lakes, for example. Has anyone ever seen such a
map?
>
> I may be able to partially answer my own question. Looking at Delaware
> (chosen because it only has three counties and a significant water area) in
the
> World Almanac, I find a "land area" of 1954 sq. miles, and a "water area" of
536
> sq.miles, and "total area" of 2489 sq. miles (off by 1 sq. mile, due to
> "rounding"). Adding the individual areas of the three counties gives 2489 sq.
> miles, leading to the conclusion that the "water area" is not allocated to any
> counties. Maybe someone with more patience than I will check out some of the
> Great Lake states to see if their areas are similarly allocated. If major
water
> areas are not completely allocated to the counties, then some county
boundaries
> may indeed not touch across some bodies of water, and thus not be globable,
> IMO. The waters separating those counties would be a "no man's land" for glob
> purposes.
> Unquote
>
> Can anyone in this group shed some light on the above?
>
> Thanks, Mike Schwartz
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>