Mike,
I'm glad to assist. I really enjoy this stuff.
I will insert some thoughts below.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: chnmtx chnmso aznmso
> 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
I've never attempted to search out the CHCOTX, CONUTX, and NUTATX tripoints, but
I am personally familiar with the corresponding stretches of the Rio Grande (as
I know you are) and even the Rio Conchos. While the Rio Conchos is the largest
tributary of the Rio Grande, whatever wild freshets it contributes would only
affect CHCOTX. Its freshets, and those from the Pecos River and other mid-rank
tributaries, are stopped cold by the Amistad Dam above Del Rio/Ciudad Acuña.
They do not reach CONUTX or NUTATX. This does not mean that the middle and
lower Rio Grande valleys are without huge freshets--primarily the result of
rains dumped by hurricanes and tropical storms. The Amistad and Falcón
Reservoirs are designed with storage capacities well above their normal levels
just to conserve such waters. I have somewhere on my computer (and can't seem
to find it) a web-cam view from Nuevo Laredo with tropical flood waters raging
inches under the roadway of International Bridge I. The Falcón Reservoir
captured that whole flood, with Brownsville/Matamoros getting not a ripple.
> 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 Supremes agree! In New Mexico v. Texas (275 U.S. 279) in 1927, they found
that the riverbed between banks along the fluvial boundary above El Paso "had an
average width of 300 feet."
> & 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
In the parts of the Rio Grande with which I am most familiar, the area between
the edges of the actual stream channel and the cutbank is naturally vegetated
with cane. Thus, this zone is invariably called the "cañada" (canebrake),
whether vegetated or cleared. The cañada definitely floods, but would not be
part of the 1970 Treaty's "normal flow."
> & 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
That would be the correct definition of MXUS per the 1970 Treaty, since the
boundary is the living middle of the channel.
> 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
Now, don't get too confident!
> 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
The Supreme Court determined in 275 U.S. 279 ( http://tinyurl.com/2ba54 ) that
the NMTX boundary was permanently frozen at the middle of the river channel as
it existed on September 9, 1850, unaltered by any accretions or avulsions
thereafter. Both states were in total agreement as to this point--their only
disagreement being where the heck that was! It was the duty of the Special
Master to sort out the historical evidence and make a map. Texas had the best
evidence by far, and its view prevailed.
As Van Zandt tells us, a commisioner was appointed to survey and mark this
boundary (almost all of which is now dry). His work was confirmed by the
Supremes at 283 U.S. 788 in 1931. Unfortunately, the web page that should
contain that decree instead contains 283 U.S. 784 (which is about some old
lady's will and the IRS). The 105 concrete monuments mentioned by Van Zandt are
presumably the work of this commissioner. If we had the decree, perhaps we
could know how he marked the southern terminus of his line at MXUS.
> 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
Since NMTX was frozen in 1850, and MXUS is the living middle of the channel,
some sort of jog or stitch is a virtual certainty!
> but i must run
>
> more later of course