Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
Date: Apr 10, 2004 @ 22:00
Author: Lowell G. McManus ("Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
----- Original Message -----
From: "acroorca2002" <orc@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>