4 insertions too
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> See my four insertions below.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "acroorca2002" <orc@o...>
> 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.
right but no mention of any manmade feature along which the
boundary runs
only a manmade feature within which it runs
& thus all the difference in the world
> > 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.
nature changes the river & thus the boundary at the same time
& the ibwc records & thereby confirms these changes
i follow that
but i guess i just dont understand why you say
adjusts
nor why you say
accommodate to
& what you mean by these terms
nor do i suppose channelized sections are spared from change
but both of these loose ends are probably just incidental anyway
> > 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.
exactly
& none of the channelized rivers i have ever seen when low or
dry were discernibly grooved or edged in the center either
for such a detail just wouldnt seem to be a necessary part of
normal dredging or construction specs
but all i have seen were just flat bottomed ditches with
meandering trickles & no discernible center lines
& i know that doesnt mean you cant possibly have a real
manmade boundary edge or groove here
but it certainly remains to be seen &or felt if you really do
> > 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 .
thanx
very nice
& clicking onto the topo shows how much they reshaped it
but i still cant imagine why or how anyone would mark its
centerline
> End of my insertions.
>
> > end insertion
> >
> >
> > > not as readily accessible as the Vatican step.
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA