thanx
& this only keeps getting more delicious
for
tho it is true that the vawv convergent at mdvawv was originally
a drainage divide
or to be more exact
a ridge line
& specifically the summit line of the blue ridge
still
we also know that this natural border was modified circa 1998
into a series of geodetic zigzags that actually leapfrog along the
true ridge line
while actually only approximating & rationalizing it
so in order to administer the exact tripointing stitch you propose
we would first have to insert a pretripointing stitch
between the extant vawv terminus on the rationalized ridge line
& some corresponding but also unknown & unknowable point
on the true ridge line
in other words
that tiny & ridiculous loose end is an actual show stopper
for now
& perhaps forever
so rather i think the question has to be
how to get down from the actual legal geodetic vawv terminal
point at high water line to the actual legal mdva&mdwv at low
water mark
& how we answer this how will determine the point where the
vawv terminal stitch reaches
& thus itself effectively determines
the tripoint
yikes
the leading choices appear to all be straight lines
1
prolonging & extending the extant terminal segment of vawv in
the spirit of sheer momentum until it reaches the low water mark
2
proceeding from the extant vawv terminal point in a spirit of
mediation at right angles to the river as far as the low water mark
& 3
proceeding from the extant vawv terminal point in a spirit of best
available literalness directly toward the ridge line visible above
the opposite bank
but again of course just as far as the low water mark
this last one is an accommodation of your basic idea to the
reality on the ground there
for another difficulty is that there is no obvious trace of the ridge
line anywhere within the river defile
a few taller boulders among all the rubble perhaps
but really just a bunch of random dots to wishfully connect
but in any case there we have at least 3 different possible
stitches to choose from
each producing a different tripoint position
i mean
to choose from once we decide on how to precisely determine
this chimerical beast called
low water mark
within such a broad expanse of basically flat river bed
what fun
but what does anyone think so far
this baby is going to be entirely up to us
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> The Supreme Court decision is at http://tinyurl.com/3vrql , and it
does indeed
> place MDWV at the low-water mark on the south bank of the
Potomac, on the same
> grounds as MDVA was similarly placed in the arbitration of
1877 (after the
> independence of WV from VA), those grounds being the MSVA
compact of 1785.
>
> The decree near the end of the decision described MDWV
thus:
>
> "Beginning at the common corner of the states of Maryland and
Virginia, on the
> southern bank of the Potomac river, at low-water mark, at or
near the mouth of
> the Shenandoah river (near Harper's Ferry), and running
thence with the southern
> bank of the said Potomac river, at low-water mark, and with the
southern bank of
> the North Branch of the Potomac river at low- water mark, to the
point where the
> north and south line from the Fairfax stone crosses the said
North Branch of the
> Potomac, and thence running northerly, as near as may be,
with the Deakins or
> Old State line to the line of the state of Pennsylvania."
>
> I would conclude that, since VAWV is delimited as a drainage
divide, any
> necessary stitch (between the possibly incomplete survey
heretofore done and the
> low-water mark) should follow the last whimper of the ridge
line across that
> portion of the bed of the river that lies between the high- and
low-water marks.
> Put another way, the MDVAWV tripoint should be at the point of
exposed land that
> is, when river flow is at its lowest, farthest from the point where
the VAWV
> survey strikes the high-water mark.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 8:06 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mathews & nelson arrive with several
surprises
>
>
> > the long elusive & then long awaited mathews & nelson
1928
> > mdva report
> > once believed indispensable for determining true mdvawv
> > & later believed indispensable for determining true dcmdvan
> > & subsequently lost en route from denver for so long that all
> > hope of its arrival was abandoned last week
> > finally reached me from out of the blue here today on cream
hill
> >
> > but this document isnt at all what we imagined it was
> >
> > its purpose was simply to correct some minor mistakes the
> > usgs cartographers had made circa 1897 in interpreting the
> > meaning of the 1877 mdva arbitral award
> > mainly at the mouths of tributaries & at some other
embayments
> > but all situated without exception
> > downriver
> > from the district of columbia
> > yikes
> >
> > so
> > the report & maps completely ignore the upper potomac
sector
> > from dcmdvan to mdvawv
> >
> > hahahahaha
> >
> > which marks easily the second if not the third bubble burst by
> > this single document
> >
> >
> > & to add to the irony
> > even if it had been the right stuff
> > as i once so confidently believed & predicted
> > & actually not just once but once for each of these tripoints in
turn
> > the scale is still too small to produce a state line any finer
than
> > about 10 or 15 feet wide
> >
> > meaning
> > it would not have refined but only confounded our tries for
both of
> > these tripoints
> > even if the data & maps it provides had been relevant to
either of
> > them
> > hahahahahaha
> > which i can now confidently conclude they definitely arent
> >
> >
> > the report does however reconfirm & underscore the fact that
> > dcmdvan
> > is indeed at the
> > low water mark
> > properly so called
> >
> > whatever that may mean
> >
> > & wherever it may lie
> >
> >
> > for of course one never actually sees a low water mark per
se
> >
> > & that is so not only because low water doesnt normally
leave a
> > mark
> > but also because a water level even lower than low water
would
> > be needed to reveal a low water mark as an impression on
land
> > rather than as just the surface of the water running past it
> > which might not normally be called a mark
> >
> > strictly speaking
> > the waters edge could produce a water line
> > but not really any mark at all
> >
> >
> > in any case the challenge now shifts from learning exactly
where
> > to learning first exactly when
> > low water occurs
> >
> >
> > i think i would accept the official zero stage for that
> > if indeed it ever occurs
> >
> > otherwise i suppose the average yearly low water stage
> >
> > but anyway what does anybody think of that
> >
> >
> > for at the same time
> > just as all these surprising truths are setting us free
> > it is most liberating to realize that the low water determination
> > will be left entirely to our own judgment now rather than
handed
> > down to us on a platter by any authority
> > for i believe we have now completed all the research
diligence
> > we can hope to do for both mdvawv & dcmdvan
> >
> >
> >
> > but i must also report a final bubble that is likely also burst by
the
> > report
> > namely
> > our belief that the 1877 award changing the high water line of
the
> > original maryland charter to the low water line applied only to
> > mdva & not at all to mdwv
> >
> > for there is appended to the report a 1910 supreme court
opinion
> > in 217us577 apparently extending the award of low water
mark
> > to mdwv also
> > yikes
> >
> > & on top of that
> > the 1877 award does clearly state
> > true mdva begins at a point on the potomac where vawv
strikes it
> > at the low water mark
> >
> > which if correct
> > as i believe is now inescapable
> > means
> > back to the drawing board for mdvawv too
> > given that the official border blueprint showing a vawv
terminus
> > at the high water mark must therefore be incomplete
> >
> > & after such a beguilingly close encounter with closure by
mere
> > measuring tape
> > the question there
> > in the absence of any data whatsoever
> > reverts back again to
> > what is the true bearing & length of the missing tripointing
stitch
> >
> > which is exactly where i thought it stood when last i visited
> >
> >
> > but anyway the more lost illusions the better
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >