--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I'm glad to assist. I really enjoy this stuff.
>
> I will insert some thoughts below.
good
we are a great combo
me too below
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> 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.
yes yes but the point is the easterly triad are predominantly wet
& the westerly triad predominantly dry
different natural regimes
might have different effects on the border regimes
>
> > 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."
wow bullseye
thanx
what a rush
>
> > & 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.
yes i think this probably reflects or underscores the distinction i
am making between the drier & wetter regimes
for here & i suppose everywhere above presidio & on the colorado mxus
these are mostly dry sands without veggies between the veggie lines
as described above
that could be a big difference or no difference in the positions of
the tripoints involved
i dont know
but the ibwc knows
because they alone actually determine these positions
or 2 of their 3 vectors at least
& not either of our interpretations at all
thats the key point you have provided really
& there may be but neednt be any amateurish approximations
as you have suggested elsewhere
i think true amateurism
the kind we are for & about in our precision try pointing here at bp
wouldnt settle for an approximation if an exactitude were available
so maybe that means there is some difference in what you & i think of
as doing something for the love of it
but thats ok too
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.
wait
doesnt the treaty finally say mxus is whatever the ibwc says it is
thats what we finally have to salute here
dont you agree
>
> > 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!
why
what do you mean
or forget it
if its no fun
>
> > 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.
good
thanx for providing all this
it is what i am talking about
again much too fast
as my time is nearly up again
& yikes i still want to look at this on topozone
because i think i recall they are enumerated on the topos
so i do run again for now
with beeps & thanx to one & all
>
> > 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