See my four insertions below.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > I, too, would love to know exactly how the Lateran Treaty of
> 1929 delimited the
> > boundary along and about the colonnade.
> >
> > The MXUS boundary in the Rio Grande's wild segments is the
> natural middle of the
> > river. In the several artificially rectified and channelized
> segments, the
> > boundary is delimited in the 1970 treaty as a series of straight
> lines and
> > curved arcs, both geometrically described between coordinate
> points . The
> > largest curve is upstream of Hidalgo/Reynosa. It is an arc with
> a radius of
> > 2,585.30 feet and length of 4,100.07 feet. Yes, this is an
> underwater boundary,
>
> & yes this would be a manmade
> f i g u r e
> delineating a border
>
> just like the arcs of depa or dzly etc
> except more wet than dry in this case
> as you indicate
>
> however
> i still dont see any manmade
> f e a t u r e
> there yet
> or any feature at all to go with this figure
> tho you did begin by speaking of artificial channels
> as examples of manmade features
The 1970 treaty promulgated the geometric specifications of the artificial
channel rectifications to be undertaken, mandated the construction of said
channels at joint expense, and provided for transfers of sovereignty (by IBWC
minutes) upon completion of the works. This was all done. Thus, certain
stretches of the river and boundary were relocated into manmade features
composed of lines and arcs as specified in the treaty.
> moreover
> what about the ongoing border adjustment regime you
> described around the middle of message 12709
You refer to the IBWC's periodic reviews of the river to map any natural
alterations to the middle of the main channel, which is the treaty boundary.
Nature constantly adjusts the boundary by its adjustment of the river. The
IBWC, by its periodic reviews, is merely updating its maps to accommodate to the
boundary, not adjusting the bounary to accommodate to the river.
> does this not apply here also
The straight and arced artificial channels were designed by hydrologic engineers
to minimize natural accretion and thus stabalize the river and its mid-channel
boundary. That having been said, the boundary is affected by whatever
fine-scale evolutions that might occur within the artificial channels.
> still
> whatever it is you are so affirmatively pointing to here
> it must make a pretty even if completely different kind of sight
> as well as an exemplar of an entirely different sort of rarity
>
> but can we see this or any other such mxus arc on a map
Oh yes. All of the proposed channel rectifications are shown on photo-mosaic
maps attached to and made a part of the 1970 treaty. I have them. Any map or
aerial photo made since the completion of the works would show the arced
artificial channel. The largest artificial arc, which I have previously
described, can be seen as the quarter-circle just below the center of the image
at http://tinyurl.com/2r2wz .
End of my insertions.
> end insertion
>
>
> > not as readily accessible as the Vatican step.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA