--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> 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.
you got that half right too
for at least i dont agree
even if i dont care to disagree
because
you say extraneous & uncalled for
& you belittle your own words as verbiage
but arent you glad you have finally said something closer to the
truth
& are no longer stuck in repeatedly misrepresenting it
seeing as you evidently do wish to represent it so much
& dont you at least wish to understand that process
for my part
i would say that was an essential clarification
but as i say
this is just a nonagreement rather than an active disagreement
> 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@y...>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >