in lowellspeak
so far as i know
only iqir could be said to accrete & avulse
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> --- 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >