Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss discovered
Date: Jan 25, 2002 @ 16:23
Author: m donner ("m donner" <maxivan82@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
>From: "bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>that is wonderful
>Reply-To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: new online legal supplement to bus&ss
>discovered
>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 02:34:54 -0000
>
>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.
>i think it must actually jump out of its bed
>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?
>i like this alternative universe thesis but see below
>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?
>well i did just say i think this may set a rare exception even to the rule
>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).
>i think it follows from the above that they must be explicit
>If land-based witness monuments override channel boundaries, must
>this be stated explicitly or is it the default?
>there you have an actual tristate marker rather than only a witness rock
>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
>