brian
i know you have offered this opinion before
nor did i disagree out loud a second time by offering these new sources
because you already heard me once
so this time i will only note 2 facts from bus&ss p4f
1
when bed & channel are changed by the natural & gradual processes known as
erosion & accretion the boundary follows the varying course of the stream
2
if the stream from any cause natural or artificial suddenly leaves its old
bed & forms a new one
by the process known as avulsion
the resulting change of channel works no change of boundary
which remains in the middle of the old channel tho no water may be flowing
in it
now i believe a stream of this small size couldnt possibly have accreted
anywhere near so much as you believe it has
namely several times its own width
even in these 11 decades
if streams could routinely sneak around that way they wouldnt make very good
boundaries
& accretion would be a terrible problem
which it generally isnt
yet somehow usgs has gotten the idea that mnndsd has moved
& this cant be entirely ignored or poopooed until we know for sure why they
think this
but in the meantime i think they probably mistook an avulsion or work of man
for an accretion
remember
except for only the very minor inching of accretions
only a supreme court decision or act of congress could actually make the
tripoint move
so i continue to think mnndsd will be found basically unmoved
& moreover since the witness rock pinpoints it
this tripoint might be uniquely empowered to withstand even accretion
& thus remain absolutly unmoved even despite accretion
in any case it will be interesting to see how far the 9 chains fall from the
thalweg today
& then we can see what there is to argue about
probably very little
because tho i myself reached & identified this usgs mnndsd position first i
still just cant see it as even being worth talking about
unless substantiated by something real
m
>From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
>discovered
>Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 15:31:31 -0000
>
>Except, of course, for the unratified means of erosiion and
>accretion. I still like the hypothesis that MNNDSD moved gradually
>from the point 9 chains east of the nearby witness monument to the
>position shown on the topo map (or thereabouts) and was then frozen
>at that position by the man-made avulsion of straightening and
>leveeing the river. A possible discrepancy would occur if the topo
>map was not made at the time the river was rechanneled (a likely
>discrepancy). We really need to see the maps that were used during
>the construction project. Also, this hypothesis leads to an infinite
>number of paleoMNNDSD points along the 9-chain line segment east of
>the witness monument.
>
>BJB
>
> > if you are searching for a particular topic such as mnndsd for
>example then
> > you can simply scan the list & see that the court at least has
>never ruled
> > on any of the 3 interstate boundaries that terminate there at
>mnndsd
> > & thus can conclude that if any change has occurred in the mnndsd
>position
> > since its creation it would have had to have been approved by the
>only other
> > possible means of ratification
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com