yes & i think all these data only further substantiate an
exclusively maritime application for the term
mean low water mark
& thus its utter confusion & irrelevancy here at mdvawv
& its irrelevancy at dcmdvan too btw
for that matter
as just any plain low water mark should be equally good there
too
the funny thing is that there doesnt seem to be any clear idea
anywhere of the low water mark of a stream
let alone its mean low water mark
an apparent finesse of precision without new meaning or insight
but it makes me realize that whatever is meant by the term
it is perhaps almost as much a reference to a living changeable
line as is
say
the term thalweg is
so we are never going to pin it down once & forever in any case
& in fact we might only be able to observe the low water mark as
the actual & variable edge of the river whenever the water level
remains below some threshold that somehow signifies to
someone that a sufficient lack of water has been reached for its
edge to be taken seriously as the actual living state line marker
& at all higher stages
well
one would just have to remember or imagine where the water
edge was horizontally when it was last low enough to qualify
so in that way
under the right & not too terribly rare conditions
the true & variable mdvawv tripoint position might become
experientially determinate
& so might be experimentally determined
for that moment in time
by the trypointers themselves
but again
this assumes vawv can even be coaxed down to the true low
water mark
for i dont think these right conditions could ever be right enough
to cause mdvawv to truly reach the veggie line
plat & legal description to the contrary notwithstanding
as the lowness of low water would still have to be taken at least
somewhat in earnest
& the question for us may just be
how low is low enough
&or how earnest is earnest enough
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> After much searching, I have found many lay references to the
"mean low-water
> mark" as the Potomac River boundary between Maryland and
Virginia, but I have
> found no legal basis for the word "mean" as part thereof.
>
> The basic document determining the MDVA boundary (the
Black-Jenkins Award of
> 1877 at www.virginiaplaces.org/pdf/mdvaappc.pdf ) never uses
the word "mean" in
> association with the low-water mark of the Potomac River, nor
does it otherwise
> define or qualify how the low-water mark is to be found.
>
> Virginia statutes do provide (in Code of Virginia § 28.2-1202)
that "...the
> limits or bounds of the tracts of land lying on the bays, rivers,
creeks and
> shores within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and the
rights and
> privileges of the owners of such lands, shall extend to the
mean low-water mark
> but no farther..." Perhaps this is why the word "mean" always
seems to creep
> in.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries
continued
>
>
> > For what it's worth, a metadata document dated February 10,
2000, from the
> > Virginia Office of Mapping and Geographic Information is
quoted on the Loudoun
> > County web site at
> >
http://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/omagi/docs/metadata_/county/county
.txt
> > as follows:
> >
> > Loudoun's boundary with Maryland is the
> > mean low water mark of the Potomac River
> > on the Virginia side; it has not been surveyed.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:32 AM
> > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries
continued
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >