Okay, I will confess that the rivers and boundary to not themselves accrete and
avulse. Rather, they move by processes of accretion and events of avulsion. To
say that the rivers and boundaries accrete and avulse is a convenient but
oversimplified shorthand, but I think we all know what is meant.

However, I do steadfastly defend what you call my "pet notion" that MXUS,
contrary to the general behavior of fluvial boundaries, does move when the
rivers move by events of avulsion. It does so because the Treaty of 1970 says
that it does. See http://www.ibwc.state.gov/Files/1970Treaty.pdf . This is not
the only way in which this particular boundary behaves uniquely because the
treaty says so.

The treaty does not use the words "accretion"and "avulsion," but rather
describes the processes. Article III, paragraph A says "When the Rio Grande or
the Colorado River moves laterally eroding one of its banks and depositing
alluvium on the opposite bank, the international boundary shall continue to
follow the middle of the channel occupied by normal flow..." (This is movement
by accretion.) Paragraph B of the same article says, "When the Rio Grande or
the Colorado River, through movements other than those described in paragraph A
of this Article, separates from one Contracting State a tract of land, which
might be composed of or include islands..." (This, of course, is by movement by
avulsion.) It goes on to explain that the state losing land by such events
shall notify the other state through the IBWC "at the earliest possible date"
whether or not it intends to restore the river to an artificial channel in the
prior location at its own expense. If so, then the boundary is frozen in the
prior location for three years, renewable for one additional year. If it
notifies that it does not choose to channelize, or if it does not channelize in
time, then "the international boundary shall be fixed in accordance with the
provisions of Article II (A) of this Treaty..."

So, it is entirely fair to say that the boundary moves as a consequence of
either natural accretion or natural avulsion, subject only in the latter case to
the right of rectification by artificial means. During every flood, there must
be numerous small changes by avulsion that do not justify the expense of
channelization.

Article III, paragraph C provides that, if the rivers should separate by
avulsion a tract with an area more than 617.76 acres (250 hectares) or with a
population more than 100, then the boundary is frozen and a rectification by
artificial channelization shall be undertaken by the IBWC at joint expense of
the two states.

Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA

----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:23 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ME-NB-QC

> i agree with all of this except your novel idea that mxus
> or any other boundary for that matter
> accretes &or avulses
> &
> likewise
> your pet notion expressed or implied here once again
> that the mxus river sectors
> & stream boundaries in general
> necessarily move as a result of avulsions
>
>
> for
> in the first instance
> these 2 terms
> accrete & avulse
> arent normally applied to boundaries at all
> nor technically even to boundary streams per se
> but only to the soils literally moved by the streams
> or perhaps figuratively moved by them
> in the case of sudden shifts in the stream courses
>
>
> soils accrete or wash up gradually
>
> & accrete doesnt normally mean subtract but only add soil
>
> the opposite of accrete if any is probably decrease or erode
>
>
> by contrast
> lands avulse or are torn away suddenly
>
> & tho avulse normally means only to separate & not to join
> it is evidently also sometimes applied ignorantly to streams
> in the sense of to suddenly shift course or position
> but such shifts arent really the avulsions
>
> rather the shifts produce the avulsions
>
>
> & in the second instance
> stream boundaries that arent frozen like caus do normally move
> about when the streams they follow accrete soils to one bank or
> the other
> but not when the streams they follow suddenly shift course &
> avulse lands
> whether the boundaries follow the thalwegs or some other
> aspect of the streams
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Unlike the MXUS river boundaries, which accrete and avulse
> with the rivers, the
> > CAUS waterway boundaries were frozen long ago. Thus, they
> do not necessarily
> > follow the modern thalwegs or even the streams. If an island
> were to form at a
> > tripoint, then the tripoint would become dry. I hasten to say,
> however, that I
> > believe that this particular "island" exists only in the mind of
> Mapquest.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ME-NB-QC
> >
> >
> > > Yep, I know mapquest is not authoritative, but I
> > > didn't think it would have depicted an entire island
> > > that isn't there. It depicts the tripoint on the
> > > shore of this island (obviously placing CA-US off the
> > > thalweg). But there is precedence for CA-US not
> > > following the thalweg of this river a little further
> > > downstream. Note the several pene-enclaves of Canada
> > > on the US side of the river: (size should be medium)
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=19&n=5227262&e=50509
> 4&s=50&size=m&datum=nad83&layer=DRG25
> > >
> > > --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ahaha
> > > > it was i who recently missed your mapquest
> > > > attachment
> > > >
> > > > but you realize mapquest is notoriously unreliable
> > > > especially for remote areas
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > > > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > > but do you ask because it has been reported dry
> > > > > or has someone recently missed it
> > > > > or what
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, aletheia
> > > > kallos
> > > > > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > --- Michael Kaufman <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > was wet but now on shore of island?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=19&n=5238603.00017414
> > > > > &e=496066&datum=nad83
> > > > > > > but then compare with the mapquest attachment
> > > > below
> > > > > > > has this point been visited recently?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the only known & best imaginable visit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > class b
> > > > > > as in
> > > > > > basically been baptized bare bottom
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://ns36.super-hosts.com/~bjbsoftware.com/corners/pointdet
> > > > > ail.php3?point=143
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free
> > > > storage!
> > > > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>