& worth a good deal yet again in view of all the subsequent
discoveries & revelations
at least for laughs
& yet maybe for the real tries too
because the claim by the state of virginia in 2000 that the mean
low water mark hadnt been surveyed in loudon county is
contradicted by the acceptances of this very survey by both these
entities some time in 1998 or 1999 if i am not mistaken
including especially the placement of the mdvawv tristate point
aka jelowa tricounty point precisely at this patently absurd
convergent mean low water mark & vegetation line position
& one might still dismiss this supposed tripoint & its specific
water level as being only bipartite & merely hypothetical were it
not for all the accumulated effects of acquiescence &
prescription that have already been so telling on this particular
border
for it now seems to me
until & unless any better survey of the true low water mark is
made & legalized in loudon or anywhere at all on these borders
& unless & until maryland actually objects to this vawv survey &
its determination of the mdvawv position
& along with it this entire crazy mean low water mark
whatever that may mean
& thus by implication & for lack of any better precedent the actual
water level that effectively defines the entire mdva & mdwv state
lines from the fairfax stone to smith point
over the dead bodies both of the arbirators of 1877 & the
supremes of 1910
yikes
she has unwittingly but fully sanctioned by her inaction what the
legislatures of both the other states have unwittingly but fully
sanctioned by their action
& this without a single approval by the united states congress of
any of these 3 unwitting but effective border changes
so as i see it
for lack of any better known definitions of them anywhere
the usgs depiction having been stripped of all credibility
& the mathews & nelson maps being no better on these details
kevin has single handedly redefined not just the limited border
sector & tristate point he was contracted to survey
but also by default the greater portion of 2 entire other state lines
namely
all of riparian mdwv & all of riparian mdva
or am i again deluded
& it is a real question why maryland would ever stand for being
held legally sovereign & responsible in a place that is generally
as high & dry upon the right bank as the official vawv terminal
point indicates
for obviously
once her title to this dry land had been judicially extinguished
it is not at all within her interest or expectation to be held
accountable for anything that ever happens on it
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
<aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> worth a good deal as probable source of the mysterious word
> m e a n
> in the legal description
> & for suggesting virginia state government as the metasource
>
> & thus worth a good deal again if virginia will tell us where she
> picked it up from & what she means by it
> for that much could give at least a unilateral sanction &
definition
> of low water mark in re mdva
> if not actually delivering a similar blessing on the mdwv
> convergent at the same time
>
> to which we however would still need to materialize & add the
> nonexistent vawv convergent
>
> for it still needs to miraculously get down from the veggie line
> several hundred feet
> & in an unknown direction too
>
> hopefully by phone later today
>
> but i really cant imagine a correction or revision happening at
> this point
> just because some jokers notice a little loophole or 3
>
>
> for of the missing tripointing stitch
> the county & state of loudon & virginia are evidently unaware
> as is the county of jefferson in wv too
> if not wv herself also
>
> not to mention any consent or prescription from maryland
about
> any of this mean stuff
> for she is probably even more blissfully unaware of it all from
the
> far side of the river yet too
>
>
> & the fact that the low water mark hasnt been surveyed is no
> great surprise
> but still worth a good deal yet again
> for confirming that we are indeed going where none have gone
> before
> with regard to not just 1 but all 3 convergents here
>
>
> for it now appears this tripoint position is still entirely unknown
in
> all dimensions
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > 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