ok
but why do you think usace or anyone for that matter would even know which
avulsion was the first avulsion since damn
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: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:49:39 -0000
>
>I had did not make a distinction between the DAMN line and the
>MNND/MNSD line because they are equivalent, following the Bois de
>Sioux's meanders. The first avulsion froze the boundary. I am
>proposing that the first avulsion was caused by the USACE and froze
>the boundary at the position indicated on the topo map.
>
>BJB
>
>--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> > >From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@b...>
> > >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> > >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.
> >
> > ok i am following you so far
> > but please let me butt in here
> > because i was still operating from your earlier hypothesis
> > which began i thought correctly with the damn line of 1858
> > when there were neither nd nor sd but only plain dakota & minnesota
> > or in other words 33 years before this ndsd survey you are now
>beginning
> > with
> > which produced the 9ce measurement
> >
> > so there is that question still hanging
> >
> > but i believe the right starting questions should be
> > can we find & indeed has anyone ever found the 1858 bois de sioux
>damn line
> > & if so can we then follow or have they then followed the life of
>the bois
> > de sioux along the latitude of the 1891 witness monument through
>its
> > accretions from 1858 until its first avulsion whether natural or
>artificial
> > froze it somewhere
> > & can we find or have they found that point
> >
> > for that could well be what the usgs topo quad is indicating for
>mnndsd
> > or it could also be what someone merely thought was true but
>really wasnt
> >
> > & if that point cannot really be found
> > as i surmise
> > then we must begin from the starting point you are now working from
> >
> > but i believe some of the difficulty is that our hypotheses have
>been
> > meandering about as much as the river
> > so let me wait for your confirmation or clarifications on these
>points above
> > before i proceed with the rest of your explanation below
> > for i have again run out of time
> >
> > thanx
> > m
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
>http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
http://mobile.msn.com