Regarding meanders, avulsions, etc. evidently I am not describing
something clearly enough. It is actually the core of my argument so
if it is not clear why erosion followed by avulsion would have changed
the boundary, then something is wrong in my explanation. Let me try
again and pardon me if this is all repetition. I propose the
following:
At the time the 9CE witness monument was set, the Bois de Sioux
midchannel was 594 feet east of the monument, the exact course of
the river at that time is not known except for that point.
Over the next 100 years or so meandering occurred. This starts as a
shallow bend in the river. Waterflow is strongest on the outside
bank of the curve. It is called the "cut bank" because erosion
occurs most rapidly here. Waterflow is slowest on the inside bank
and sediment accumulates here. The process is self-magnifying and
eventually results in a very distended meander shaped like Kentucky
Bend. I hypothesize that the river had meandered into a configuration
consistent with the USGS map at the time that map was made.
Leveeing often involves straightening to increase flow and reduce
lateral erosion, so I am guessing the river was straightened by
cutting off the meander. I believe this falls into the category of a
man-made avulsion. This activity, therefore, would not have changed
the boundary. The boundary would have been stranded at the apex of
the meander.
Since the area adjacent to the river is good bottom land, it seems
likely that the old riverbed would have been graded flat to accomodate
farm equipment.
But this is all speculation and will require additional data from the
USACE to verify.
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> key largo fl
>
> thanx brian
> & more below
>
> >From: "bjbutlerus" I have sent a fairly detailed request to the US
Army
> >Corps of
> >Engineers in the MN-ND-SD district in an attempt to locate some
> >engineering plans for the Bois de Sioux project that possibly
changed
> >the course of the river.
>
> great
> this is world class punctology
> which btw is what i think bp is about at its best
>
> If available this map might show the
> >riverbed just prior to the "avulsion".
>
> yes
> it might be available
> & it might show their avulsion
> if indeed they made one
> for they might also have simply been reinforcing the existing or
dominant
> bed here while backfilling any potential competition from all lesser
> channels or relict beds
>
> it does at least seem from my own recollection of the site as well
as from
> the usgs depiction at topozone 25k scale that the old river bed
usgs places
> mnndsd in today no longer exists
> compliments probably of usace
>
> Since meanders become more
> >acute until they finally break through and form a horseshow lake,
the
> >position of the river mid-channel along the current ND-SD line just
> >prior to the avulsion would be the tri-point according to legal
> >principles we have discussed here.
>
> i agree with your premise & probably your conclusion too
> but dont see how the one follows the other
> yet perhaps no matter
> but i am running out of time at this computer
> so i will have to continue later
> but please respond or add in if you like
>
> m
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I have not even
> >received a confirmation that the USACE received my message and it
has
> >been a couple of days.
> >
> >BJB
> >
> >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> > > thanxx to your several recent theories & other new info
> > > i have substantially revised my own mnndsd guess
> > >
> > > in fact much of my 1858 to 2002 chronology guess is now
smithereens
> > > tho its basic idea of benign neglect & sublime ignorance is
> >unchanged
> > >
> > > & i no longer agree with my former opinion that it isnt worth
> >talking
> > > about without proof
> > > for that was a folly anyway
> > >
> > > it is always worth talking if it feels good
> > >
> > > m
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > truth
> > > > good luck
> > > > m
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > >Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to
> >bus&ss
> > > > >discovered
> > > > >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 16:03:48 -0000
> > > > >
> > > > >Truce. I will try to get the proof.
> > > > >BJB
> > > > >
> > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >From: "bjbutlerus"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Sorry if I made you feel insecure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & silly of me not to understand why you think in these
terms
> > > > > > for i would rather be silly than sorry insecure etc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & it is of course ones own thought that primarily makes
one
> >feel
> > > > > > not anothers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > m
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & you are the accredited geologist here
> > > > > > so i am listening to you closely about all that loam
> > > > > > for i am only a punctologist
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but yes please do give me the proof
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The facts from BUS&SS that you mention are the very
ones I
> >am
> > > using in
> > > > > > >my hypothesis. We have a difference of opinion as to
> >whether
> > > the Bois
> > > > > > >de Sioux could produce a meander of approximately 450
feet
> > > over the
> > > > > > >course of 110 years (or less, depending when the river
was
> > > > > > >channelized). The soil in that area is loamy and not
> > > particularly
> > > > > > >resistant, so I think a meander of that size would be
quite
> > > possible.
> > > > > > >Further evidence is provided by the other meanders north
and
> > > south of
> > > > > > >the one in question. The pattern is unmistakably that
of a
> > > meandering
> > > > > > >river.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >But are right about needing further information to reach a
> > > conclusion.
> > > > > > > I am trying to get some details about where the river
> >flowed
> > > just
> > > > > > >prior to being straightened.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >BJB
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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@b...>
> > > > > > > > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > > > > > > > >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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your
photos:
> > > > > > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> > > http://mobile.msn.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com