an unexpected bonus document entitled
vawv boundary survey project report
was also enclosed in the same email
its introduction indicates
the surveyor was contracted by loudon & jefferson counties to
establish the top of the blue ridge watershed from the tripoint
with clarke county va to the tripoint with washington county md
which latter point it then restates parenthetically as
the mean low water mark of the potomac river on the virginia
side
so it could be significant that the word
m e a n
was added
but that would still not get us anywhere near the veggie line
however
unless it is just an idle & meaningless word someone added
it might help us to establish which of several possible definitions
of the low water mark might have been meant
first by the 1877 arbitrators & later the 1910 supremes
if they actually said or meant it that way
& then as recited by the surveyors or whoever hired them in 1997
assuming they were parroting something real in some original
text somewhere
i mean it might help us if the task of determining the low water
mark falls to us
as i am beginning to think it may well do
since nobody else seems to care very much
but
perhaps equally or more significantly
there is nothing in the accounts of these decisions given by
mathews & nelson nor in bus&ss that indicates the word mean
was ever used
whether in the adjudications or in any connection with these
boundaries at any time or place
& as for what the specifically mean low water mark means here
i dont know if it can have any meaning for rivers other than
perhaps the average annual low water mark
tho in maritime use it can refer to an averaging of a full tidal cycle
of 19 consecutive years of low water marks
but anyway i am racing ahead as well as possibly off on a
tangent here
so lets first see what the phonecall turns up tomorrow
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> staggering news
>
> the vawv legal description
> which has just arrived by email
> & is nothing but a metes & bounds description of the survey
> indicates unquestionably
> that the point we already know as the vawv terminal point
> & which you may recall was shown in the plat on the veggie
line
> is situated 79point56 feet from the terminal marker we also
> already know
> tho my own great circle computation had it at 79point52 feet
> but no matter
>
> & moreover it flatly indicates that this point is at the
> low water mark
> of the potomac river
>
> yikes
>
> & is common to the counties & states of
> loudon va & jefferson wv & washington md
>
> yikes
>
> i kid you not
>
> yikes
>
> in other words
> they all believe the veggie line & the low water line are the
same
> thing
>
> yikes
>
> & this is all perfectly legal yet
>
> yikes
>
> so my suspicion that they might not have known what they
were
> doing is beginning to look justified
>
>
> & the error was probably never noticed because the lands
> involved are probably in the public domain & probably dont
> appear on the tax rolls of any county
>
>
> needless to say
> i will be back on the horn with kevin in the morning
>
> but in the meantime
> what does anyone else make of this
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > just got off the phone with kevin again
> >
> > & the vawv legal description is already on its way to cream
hill
> >
> > & he too is now actively pondering the question of exactly
how
> vawv
> > gets down to the low water mark from the terminal point of
his
> survey
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> McManus"
> > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > Please see my two insertions below.
> > > >
> > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:07 PM
> > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries
> > > continued
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > yes
> > > > > kevins my man
> > > > >
> > > > > & tho i agree his excellent report does not directly
> address
> > > the
> > > > > question of the tripoint
> > > > > it certainly provides a new clue that could well lead to
the
> > > tripoint
> > > > > for it reveals the existence of a legal description of the
> > > boundary
> > > > > previously unsuspected by me
> > > > > in addition to the plat & marker description reports
> already
> > in
> > > my
> > > > > possession
> > > > >
> > > > > aha
> > > > >
> > > > > & this already sounds like
> > > > > practically if not exactly
> > > > > the extra tidbit you suggested i might find on file in the
> > county
> > > > > courthouses alongside the survey
> > > > > aha
> > > > >
> > > > > so that already looks like some pretty sharp shooting
with
> > > both
> > > > > barrels by you
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm glad to be of help!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > & you can bet i will be on the phone with kevin in the
> morning
> > > > > about this missing & possibly critical document
> > > > >
> > > > > & yes possibly just another red herring too
> > > > > i concede
> > > > > but due diligence demands i track it down in any case
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > & another footnote to the dcmdvan try too
> > > > >
> > > > > it also just occurred to me
> > > > > an additional essential bit of data i need to remember
to
> pull
> > > off
> > > > > the paper topo is the compass bearing of the
dcmd&arfa
> line
> > > > > yikes
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The bearing was supposed to be north 45 degrees east.
> > > BUS&SS says:
> > > >
> > > > The lines do not bear exactly 45° from the
> > > > meridian, but the greatest variation is only 1¾'.
> > >
> > > right but we need to know the actual bearing along this
> segment
> > > of the border
> > > which we can pull from the paper topo as well as anywhere
> > >
> > > perhaps as much as millimeters of difference are at stake
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The footnote on that says:
> > > >
> > > > For data regarding surveys and boundary
> > > > marks see Baker, Marcus, Nat. Geog. Mag.,
> > > > vol. 6, pp. 149-165, 1894."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > obviously
> > > > > since we cant count on marker wm1 to give us the
angle
> of
> > > > > approach to dcmdvan but only to indicate a point on the
> > > > > dcmd&arfa line some 49 or so feet away from it
> > > > > aha
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > so things keep cooking nicely on both fronts