Boundary Pointers obviously care more about the precise location of MDVAWV than
do Maryland, Virginia, or West Virginia. Since there's no taxable property
involved, the tripoint is likely to remain very poorly defined until and unless
someone commits a murder in a rubber raft and forces the question into
litigation. (I'm not suggesting anything, Mike! LOL)
Lowell G. McManus
Leesville, Louisiana, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>
To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mdvawv busted again
>
>
> finally managed to reach kevin vaughn
> the vawv3jelo surveyor
> for my mdvawv followup question
>
> & since he couldnt qualify his specific water mark & vawv terminal
> point any further than to say that he was following the instructions
> of larry stipek
> director of the mapping & geographic information department of
> loudon county
> & who had in fact been designated as project manager by the
> commissions of both loudon & jefferson counties
> i was delighted to learn his reason for calling me back was that he
> could now patch me directly in to the man himself
>
>
> & this morning larry acknowledged kevins survey didnt reach the low
> water mark
> & that his vawv terminal point therefore isnt true legal mdvawv
> notwithstanding all the documentation & ratifications to the contrary
>
> he also acknowledged that the low water mark has still not been
> surveyed in loudon county
> nor presumably jefferson either
>
> he also tried to run the mean or average idea up the flagpole
> & likewise tried the headland to headland doctrine out on me
> til i told him i thought both these principles applied only to the
> maritime reaches of mdva below dc & were both actually inapplicable
> at mdvawv
>
> & he conceded i might be right
> but did go on to suggest that government records might still be used
> to establish a provisional objective low water level & mark
>
> whether mean or otherwise
>
>
> he also agreed when i suggested the vawv terminal segment could just
> be extended on the established bearing down to the low water mark
> but then also acknowledged this could not be counted upon since it
> wasnt legally specified
> again at my initiative
>
> finally he agreed true mdvawv remains unknown
> & not only because the low water mark is unknown but also because
> there can be no presumption about how & where vawv continues to the
> low water mark from kevins terminal point
>
> so instead of true mdvawv
> something of a black hole
>
> & as officially as can be
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>