Well, I am assuming the man-made avulsion required to rechannel the
river was the only avulsion in the relevant time-frame. Either a
natural or man-made avulsion would leave a [small] horseshoe lake,
but these could be filled in to make plowing easier, etc. so you are
right, we don't know whether other, natural avulsions occurred.
But...
I received a phone call from the St. Paul USACE office today and they
have no less than three people tracking down historical maps and
hydrographic data for for this question. They seemed genuinely
interested in helping me find an answer. I am supposed to hear more
next week but it is encouraging so far.
Of course this MNNDSD problem opens up the whole legal arena with
questions like:
How rapidly must a river change course for it to be considered an
avulsion?
If the river channel changed gradually and the boundary with it, but
nobody explicitly noticed it or cared about it, then the river was
relocated back to its original location, would the boundary actually
be stranded, or would the time spent meandering be pinched off into
some other universe and the boundary remain as it was originally?
Does the existence of the initial monument (9CE) mitigate the meander
rule? After all, many river boundaries have now been marked with
monuments near the shore specifically to pin down the boundary and
eliminate changes due to meanders (MXUS is a good example).
If land-based witness monuments override channel boundaries, must
this be stated explicitly or is it the default?
What does this mean for MANHVT? Did damming the Connecticut raise
the river and extend NH's reach or does subterranean monument pin the
location?
If you are heading to Key West, please let me know if there is still
a tin shack called the Shrimp Dock that still serves good beer-
steamed shrimp. And I hope you find JC. Please pardon any typos -
too lazy to proofread.
BJB
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "m donner" <maxivan82@h...> wrote:
> 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@b...>
> >Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >To: BoundaryPoint@y...
> >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