Mike,
I'm sorry that I was less than clear. I was suggesting that the IWBC might
arrange with the Border Patrol for you to be permitted to visit the
tripoint--preferably without the Border Patrol, but with them if need be.
The office in El Paso in indeed the supreme head office of the US Section of the
IWBC. There is none higher.
When I had the IWBC send me a copy of the treaty last summer, they didn't have
it on their web site. Now it's there as a .pdf file:
http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/1970Treaty.pdf . Go to page 13 of the .pdf and
see Article II Section A for the description of how the boundary runs in the
rivers.
You will find that the boundary in the Rio Grande and Colorado River "shall run
along the middle of the channel occupied by normal flow." Where there are two
or more channels, the boundary is in the middle of the one with the "greater or
greatest average width over its length." In Section B. on the next page, the
IWBC is empowered to determine "the normal flows, which shall exclude flood
flows, and the average widths."
My earlier statement regarding midway between the vegetation lines was simply
meant as a suggestion of what might perhaps be the amateur's best field
approximation of the middle of the channel at normal flow.
I interpret the treaty's "middle of the channel" as the geographic median line,
not the thalweg. I base this on the specification of the average width (and
nothing about depth) as the determinant of the boundary channel when there are
more than one. I believe this to be entirely appropriate for a pair of rivers
known for their shallowness and scarcely navigable.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:01 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: chnmtx chnmso aznmso
> hahaha
> but i have visits with the border patrol all the time
>
> better if the ibwc could facilitate nonvisits with them for me
> hahaha
>
>
> & yes it certainly might be fun to pay that visit to their office in
> el paso anyway
> especially if thats their main office
> yikes
> is that what you are saying
>
> perhaps your old informant is there too
> fantastic
> & all the more interesting if you would refresh me with all the
> salient details of the 1970 mxus treaty & any other relevant data
> that have led you to your conclusion that mxus falls midway between
> the vegetation lines
> if that is indeed your conclusion
> which i am guessing
> based on the opinion you expressed of azbcca anyway
>
> for i couldnt be sure unless you put it in full yourself
> without my inadvertently putting words into your mouth
>
> hopefully before i retry chnmtx
>
> thanx
>
>
> & another merry mxus to one & all
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike, wrote:
> >
> > > & even if there werent also some difference of opinion about what
> the
> > > 1970 mxus treaty actually means
> > > by
> > > the middle of the channel
> > > or
> > > the middle of the broadest channel
> > > etc
> >
> > While you're so near, why don't you pay a visit to the headquarters
> of the US
> > Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission? It's
> located in The
> > Commons, Building C, Suite 310; 4171 North Mesa Street; El Paso,
> Texas.
> >
> > Perhaps they can clarify this for you. They might even be able to
> facilitate a
> > visit with the Border Patrol.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA