Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss discovered
Date: Jan 24, 2002 @ 17:08
Author: m donner ("m donner" <maxivan82@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>ok i am following you so far
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
>discovered
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 02:41:30 -0000
>
>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
>
>