Some people do not understand because they do not wish to understand.
You are correct that the boundary does not change solely and immediately because
of an avulsive event, but that it changes upon notification of non-intent to
unilaterally and artificially rectify the avulsion. Still it is a change in
consequence of avulsion, which would not be the case on the typical boundary
stream in absence of these treaty provisions. Thus it is correct to say that
CAUS was frozen long ago, but that MXUS still is changed by both accretion and
avulsion. To qualify the precise specifics under which it is changed requires
considerably more extraneous verbiage than was called for at the time in a
discussion of the MENBQC tripoint. I'm sure you will disagree.
It is worth noting that, since the 1970 Treaty, neither MX nor US has exercised
the right to freeze the boundary in the prior location by unilateral
channelization. Each avulsion large enough to be noticed has resulted in a
change in the boundary--admittedly upon notification "at the earliest possible
date" of the intent not to channelize--but a change resultant from avulsion
nevertheless.
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: ME-NB-QC
> --- 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>