Subject: Re: us2alflus dilemma<br/>
Date: Oct 10, 2002 @ 00:05<br/>
Author: acroorca2002 (&quot;acroorca2002&quot; &lt;orc@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="7566.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7568.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic7562.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="7566.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="7568.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1519924676">--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., &quot;kbajoras&quot; &lt;kbajoras@y...&gt; wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; I would think that the state line in the water has to be staright, <br/>
&gt; because if it isnt, then the water either 3 or 9 miles around the <br/>
&gt; tripoint would be disputed by the states on both sides. So I <br/>
 </span></blockquote>think <br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; USGS is correct.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>first<br/>
a warm welcome to you <br/>
& thanx for being here in strength<br/>
<br/>
in fact there was just such a dispute as you suppose<br/>
until a 1953 interstate compact between alabama & florida<br/>
approved by congress in 1954 <br/>
settled things as follows<br/>
<br/>
beginning from a control point located on perdido key <br/>
at nlat 30d16m53s & wlong 87d31m06s<br/>
the seaward boundary runs due south for 1000 feet <br/>
to a second point in the gulf of mexico<br/>
where it then deflects slightly southwest by 00d01m00s of arc<br/>
& continues <br/>
as the compact says<br/>
to the seaward limit of each respective state<br/>
<br/>
now the seaward limit of alabama was fixed at 3nm<br/>
by a supreme court decision in 1960<br/>
which also gave florida 9nm of territorial sea & submerged lands<br/>
into the gulf of mexico<br/>
from the low water line of its coast<br/>
<br/>
presumably that decision didnt specify due south <br/>
nor 1 minute west of due south<br/>
as did the compact<br/>
nor any other directionality<br/>
but simply 9nm from the low water line of the coast<br/>
<br/>
the supreme court didnt & couldnt override the compact but<br/>
it seems to me<br/>
it did imply that where the seaward limit of alabama ends <br/>
at a distance of 3nm from the low water line of its coast<br/>
per both the compact & submerged lands act of 1953<br/>
the seaward limit of florida could continue in full force<br/>
<br/>
& why not in every direction <br/>
as far as 9nm from the low water line of its respective coast<br/>
even if interrupted by alabama waters<br/>
<br/>
& thats why i visualize the territorial waters & submerged lands <br/>
of florida wrapping westward around those of alabama<br/>
until the 9nm are reached everywhere<br/>
including beyond the limits of alabama<br/>
<br/>
i havent seen the full texts of any of these documents<br/>
so all this is just my supposition & inference <br/>
& i honestly dont know for sure<br/>
<br/>
you could just as well be correct in thinking that the state line in <br/>
the water has to be straight<br/>
after the first turnpoint<br/>
& that there cannot be a second turnpoint<br/>
& that florida has somehow forfeited its right to the extra 6nm<br/>
by having agreed to the terms of the 1953 compact<br/>
<br/>
but i still find that hard to accept<br/>
even if it means my photo was correctly aimed<br/>
<br/>
m</div>