--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:
> I'll have to dig into this further, but my initial take on this is
> that the second retrocession I mentioned did not involve the pierheads
> as the 1945 Act specifically mentioned. Under that act, the
> highwatermark on the VA side stayed at high level, noting that this
> included south of 2nd St. Alexandria to the Jones Point.
just so
& i am pretty sure i was able to use the pierhead alignment as recently as about 1998 for what is probably still the only class b visit ever made to dcmdvas & for what is also probably still the best available pix ever made from dcmdvas au canoe
& in highly precarious waters
but in my ignorance i was mistaking the 1945 act for the second recession when clearly in hindsight it was the third
& first i have to dig these pix out for you
The second
> retrocession was the Act of Feb 23, 1927, ceding Battery Cove, where
> it says everythhing "from a line drawn at Jones Point at low water
> mark" north to "Point Lumly, now Pioneer Mills, at low water mark" of
> 46.57 acres was ceded. That means everything south of Pioneer Mills
> to Jones Point has as the boundary low water mark - matching the
> Maryland low water mark ... unless the 1945 act undid this ad placed
> the border back to high watermark by mentioning high water mark south
> of 2nd street following the pierhead.
yes len but bus&ss & i both think that the federal courts between 1922 & 1931 settled dcva at high water mark absolutely & that the 1945 decision produces just a slight & partial offset from that position
There are no piers alonf the
> whole stretch, especially at Jones PLoint, so it would seem at first
> blush that when one passed the piers, the "pierhead" profile ended and
> the boundary returnd to low water mark.
yet long before you paddle upstream from jones point the short distance to the drawbridge span you can eyeball the pierhead alignment to the north & i am pretty sure because i seem to recall doing it you can transsect that alignment with a monument to drawbridge tower alignment to make your tripoint class b which is to say about as well as a wetpoint can ever be made
>
> There was recently built a housing tract over the water, and I'm
> wondering now how that changed the border.
i would be surprised if this changed the border at all
Whether the border here is
> high or at low watermark, it seems to be in District airspace.
>
> I have been at Jones point, and the border markers indicate something
> other than the three borders coming to a single point. Maryland's
> border seems to intersect the Virginia border at some 30-50 feet
> north of the lighthouse. There is a border marker immediately
> to the east of the lighthouse, about 10 feet away from it, showing
> where the two 45-degree lines form the tip of the "old District"
> used to meet when DC was a diamond, but MD's border doesn't hit at
> that point. Maryland's border stone is on the flat land that forms
> the Jones Point bluff, 6 feet above and 10 feet inland from thd water.
this entire series of supposed mdva markers is highly suspicious to say the least
when you go please notice especially their berserk arrow alignments
they seem to be mentioned respectfully in bus&ss p91 toward the bottom of the left column but one wonders why they are given so much credence there when the pierhead alignment preemption is mentioned in the same breath
> I'll have to drive over there and look at it again, and perhaps take
> a couple of pictures for you.
please do
it will be a great pleasure
m
following is just the original text in double space bug
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., orc@o... wrote:
> > yes len & major thanx for this & at least another dose of detail
> here on principal speaking for at least several interested parties
> present
> >
> >
> >
> > the only second retrocession i am aware of included some potomac
> pierhead waters which it was technically impossible to retrocede to va
> since potomac waters never were nor could be va but only md per royal
> charters since charles ii
> >
> >
> >
> > the intensity of interest in this case arose because the dcmdvas
> federative tripoint moved a pierheads length into the river from the
> riparian initial monument point beneath jones point light
> >
> >
> >
> > & it has recently been fueled further by the realization of the
> crazy fact that
> >
> > except for the pierhead exception
> >
> > dc reaches the high water mark on the right bank while md doesnt
> reach beyond the low water mark there
> >
> > owing to conflicting court opinions
> >
> > a matter of particular interest in the configuration of the dcmdvan
> tripoint
> >
> > tho it evidently doesnt actually displace this upstream twin tp
> >
> > nor affect at all the previously displaced downstream twin tp
> >
> >
> >
> > so please do elaborate on any of the above & zero in on both of
> these tripoints in particular
> >
> >
> >
> > thanx
> >
> > m
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > There were two retrocessions one large, one more recent and
> really
> >
> > > small - I have the texts of the laws placing this into effect - if
> >
> > > anyone wants to see them. The reasoning is contained in the
> texts. I
> >
> > > work for DC government, and can get anyone who wnts this, details
> to
> >
> > > the nth degree about the subject.
> >
> > > Regards
> >
> > > LN
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., orc@o... wrote:
> >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., Anton Sherwood <bronto@p...> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > m donner wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > about the retrocession by the usa of rightbank dc to va
> >
> > > preceding va
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > secession
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > [...]
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > it happened in 1846
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > thanks. and do you know why?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > i believe it was always a sort of back lot & never really got
> >
> > > developed anything like the left bank did
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > so eventually congress voted to give it back to virginia in
> order to
> >
> > > end the pointless federal responsibility for it
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > provided its free white male citizens would agree
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > which they did by a vote of 763 to 222
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > per bus&ss
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > m