--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> I'm going to de-clutter, and then respond below:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:23 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Four Color Maps
>
>
> > good to be reminded of this even if only about 3 pages are
relevant
> > since it does indeed explain & dispose of all the apparent
anomalies
> > & inconsistencies we have been observing
> > indeed all except for the question about the territorial waters of
> > the state of washington
> > where we began
> > & where we are still seeking the proof that closing lines at the
> > heads of georgia & juan de fuca straits force the entire american
> > portion of the enclosed area into the state of washington
> > & out of the federal domain
> > even where the enclosed waters extend more than 3nm from the
coasts
> > as you suggest at the end of message 12561
> >
> > & as i would be glad to buy & have finally resolved
> > if you could show the proof
>
> I buy the boundary specified at the admission of Washington that
follows CAUS to
> the Pacific Ocean, but if you don't, your final resolution will
surely be found
> in Section 1312 of the Submerged Lands Act, as I posted earlier
today;
> specifically: "Any State admitted subsequent to the formation of
the Union
> which has not already done so may extend its seaward boundaries to
a line three
> geographical miles distant from its coast line, or to the
international
> boundaries of the United States in the Great Lakes or any other
body of water
> traversed by such boundaries."
yes maybe
but as you also indicate
washington had already extended its seaward boundaries to the
international boundaries of the usa upon its admission to the union
so i think it didnt qualify as a state that had not already done so
it does appear to qualify however as a state whose seaward boundaries
were subject to reduction by the sla in 1953
say
just like those of atlantic florida were
which i believe actually did get reduced from 9nm to 3nm
tho my bible is out in the truck as usual
so in view of this apparent exception
as well as my sense that the question hasnt actually been resolved
yet for washington
i will hold out for better proof
or rather any actual proof at all
like say
as clear a judicial opinion as we do have for florida
>
> > wish i could see the missing final illustration tho
> > since the text & caption suggest it may elucidate the position of
the
> > elusive lamsus tripoint
> > one of the last few blank spots among the 85 american tripoints
that
> > have been confirmed to exist
>
> I will look into the SCOTUS decree on the Mississippi seaward
boundary and see
> if I can deduce an exact point for the LAMSUS tripoint. From the
Official Map
> of Louisiana 2000, it is evident that the 1906 decree of LAMS has
been extended
> eastward. LAMS 1906 terminated at about 89° W Long., leaving an
undefined gap
> in the boundary of Louisiana between there and northern end of the
3nm line
> parallel with the seaward shore of Chandeleur Island. This gap
exists on the
> 1981 edition of the Official Map of Louisiana (which covers the
wall beind my
> computer, but it is gone on the 2000 edition. I suspect that the
gap was left
> pending the Mississippi decree, which came in 1985.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA