interesting
you can see all the way to marker 102 on the topo
& 3 unnumbered markers beyond it
presumably 103 & 104 & 105
but then the nmtx ceases to look geodetic & just seems to follow the
present midchannel
perhaps as per the courts specs
but this is still just a guess til we actually see the masters verdict
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> --- 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