--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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.
please
i didnt & still dont understand
which is why i raised the question of the meaning
& i think what you say below indicates you still dont understand
either
steadfast as you may be
as i will try to also explain below
> 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.
you say it does
but then you say it doesnt actually say so
& you only rephrase & rationalize what it says
to make it mean what you want it to mean
you do not actually find it saying what you say it says
moreover please continue below
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"
right
exactly
it is not the avulsion that changes the boundary
but the notification of intent
or the ultimate expiry of the time allowed
that is why your saying that the border changes because it
avulses is not understandable
but even if it were understandable
it is still not a correct reading of the text you are citing
> 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
yes as an eventual consequence
but not directly
you are only imagining that the borders
as you used to say
avulse
but borders dont really avulse even in your dreams
so the reason we cant understand this is that it just isnt so
, 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.
but each such avulsion still requires a notification of intent
whether positive or negative
before anything can happen to the border
& i imagine
if an avulsion is too tiny for anyone to care enough about to file
the notification
then it is practically or really only an accretion
> 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.
again
but a fortiori this time
because this is both the model & big enough for special notice
the avulsion itself doesnt cause any change of boundary
end inserts
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >