thanx lowell
you are a true friend to lay all this out for me so nicely
& i am glad to say i agree with you here more than i dont
but before getting into our differences
if there is time
let me just take a moment to emphasize that we are not just
talking about the correct locations of azbcca & chnmtx here
but those of fully 6 of the 8 actual tristate points of mxus
also to note that these 6 fall neatly into 2 groups of 3
a westerly or drier triad
& an easterly or wetter triad
so besides the distinctly similar azbcca & chnmtx we are talking
equally about azbcso on one hand
all 3 of which practically never see a real freshet
& on the other hand we are also talking about chcotx & conutx &
nutatx
all 3 of which do have the benefit of the wild new input of the rio
conchos
these are 2 very different sets of conditions as i will explain
also if there is time
but let me also hastily insert
since there is no free internet at all in this desert today either
& no more than an hour a day til jan 5
so my time is limited
& since i will probably be around here til at least then
etc etc
that i have been observing the rio closely
& i think what we have here & all the 3 dryer tripoints
is actually a double or triple set of vegetation lines
the fairly continuous dry veggie lines at the base of the cut banks
say 100 yards apart
& the intermittent but distinct green veggie line near the edges of
the actual stream channel
say 10 or 20 yards apart
& the underwater algae line at the actual wet edges of the
stream
say about 5 or 10 yards apart
& all this is probably more or less the same
from truth or consequences down to presidio
& everywhere on azbc
with multiple channels btw being extremely rare in my
experience
so there may be no absolute need to discuss anything with the
ibwc for any tripointing purposes as i see it
not sure yet
still thinking this thru as i type
but i think i would simply mediate the extant stream channel on
the day of my visit
ah well now
i really gotta see those maps now dont i
hahaha
& islands with veggie lines are extremely rare
but to complicate things
there does appear to be a big one at chcotx to deal with
but first where really is the chco vector
hahaha
etc
but i suppose there really is reason for me to visit the ibwc now
& not only for the maps
but to take the opportunity to also ask for that letter of intro to the
border patrol you have so brilliantly conceived for me
it would be tantamount to the marijuana passport i myself have
been wanting to create also
also about chnmtx in particular
i have turned up another contradiction in the bible
for the nmtx vector it says under texas
flatly
midchannel
but under nm it gives full details of a rationalized course of 105
markers
2 of which i believe i have already visited at txwn & txw
so like the lost cowflops of azbcca we can perhaps expect a nmtx
marker 105 at chnmtx
whatever else the ibwc says
& again a tripointing stitch is not out of the question here either
but i must run
more later of course
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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@h...>
> 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