I agree that no non-state land was created when the CAUS boundary was moved from
the theoretical 49th parallel to straight line segments between intervisible
monuments. If the northern boundary of Idaho, for instance, had been specified
as the parallel, then there might be a problem, but Idaho's northern boundary
was specified upon its 1890 admission to the Union as "the boundary line between
the United States and the British Possessions." Thus, if CAUS moves, so does
the state boundary.
The same is true along MXUS when the Rio Grande and the Colorado River accrete
and avulse. If the US grows, so do the affected states.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:10 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Possible to have land in USA that isn't in a State?
> very interesting
>
> i dont think any stateless land is actually created by it tho
>
> rather i believe idwa must continue effectively due north the extra
> half inch or so beyond the 1909 terminal marker vertex
> until it reaches the caus sight line at true bcidwa
>
> this point is reached probably while still on the marker disk
> but just north of its center point
> if i understand you correctly
>
> & if that is right
> then you have made & reported here the first monumental class
> b visit in history
>
> which is a curious contradiction in terms
> since class b was invented for unmarked points
>
> but i believe your novel findings have demonstrated that true
> bcidwa is indeed an unmarked point upon the idwa terminal
> marker
>
> & have done so with almost acupunctural precision to boot
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Patton [DCP]"
> <dpatton@c...> wrote:
> > This is a theoretical question, just out of curiosity,
> > but may not be hypothetical.
> >
> > By treaty, the Cananda/USA border along the 49th parallel
> > is defined by straight lines between border monuments.
> >
> > It's my understanding that boundaries between US states,
> > such as between Wahington and Idaho, are defined by
> > the locations of monuments along those borders.
> >
> > Apparently, the monument that defines the intersection
> > of the Washington/Idaho border with the Canada/USA border
> > was incorrectly placed by the USGS in 1909, because they
> > placed in on the parallel, which is a line with a slight
> > southward curve, rather than placing it on the straight
> > line between the two adjacent Canada/USA border
> monuments.
> >
> > The difference is apparently very small - perhaps on the
> > order of 1/2 an inch, but, at least theoretically, doesn't
> > this create a small piece of land that is south of the
> > Canada/USA border, and therefore is in the USA, but which
> > is located north of both Washinton and Idaho?
> >
> > --
> > Dave Patton
> > Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
> > http://www.confluence.org/
> > My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>