Mike,
I'm going to select some salient points and insert my responses:
You wrote:
> & 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
Oh, I'm all for the maximum possible precision. Whenever we don't have the
resources available for absolute precision, we must approximate as precisely as
possible. It is then when our insights into the operations of such organs as
the IBWC and SOCTUS or of surveying in general can be brought to bear in
refining our approximations. In other words, we can try to think how they would
think. Of course, if you happen to be within an easy visit to the supreme
headquarters of the IBWC (US Section), then you have the advantage of access to
information necessary to attain precision.
> > 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
Well, the IBWC is empowered to determine the "normal flows" and to apply the
treaty's specifications to the landscape. It is also directed by the treaty to
do surveys of the river boundaries as frequently as it considers justifiable,
but at least every ten years, and to record the position of the boundaries as
they then exist on maps or aerial photo mosaics. It is these that you should
ask to see. They are likely published by the IBWC, and might be available for
purchase at minimal cost.
> > > 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
I simply meant that you shouldn't overestimate the power of a letter of
introduction from the IBWC to the Border Patrol.
> 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
What we are missing is the Court's 1931 confirmation of the report of the
Commissioner who did the survey that the Court ordered done in pursuance of the
Special Master's detailed map. It is presumably that Commissioner who set the
105 monuments. The Special Master had reported prior to the Court's 1927
decision, which we do have. In it, the Court found, "In the territory in
dispute the Rio Grande flows southwardly through a plain of alluvial and sandy
bottom land, composed largely of detritus, and bordered on the east and west by
ranges of hills. The valley is about four miles wide at the northern end and
narrows gradually to a canyon or gorge at the southern end."
The court went on to explain that the shallow river would often flood and move
around all over the plain of detritus. At the very southern end of the boundary
stretch, however, the river did not move around in the gorge. The short gorge
segment of the boundary was not in dispute in the case. Thus, it would have
been addressed by neither the Special Master nor the Commissioner. The boundary
through the gorge is the middle of the channel as frozen in 1850, but since the
river can't move much there, nobody has ever been bothered by the lack of
precision. This would be the section of the river below your presumed monument
105, passing under the two railroad bridges and on to MXUS.
Thus, the position of CHNMTX is defined by two vectors determined by the IBWC
and one that has been frozen since 1850, but never precisely demarcated in a
formal way.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA