When rivers make confusing boundaries

Hi Viatologists and Geography Aficionados,

It's a natural occurrenct that land shifts and rivers divert. When state
borders are defined on geographic points of interest, it presents a gamble
that mother nature remains complacent. If mother nature takes it course and
"shifts" the point of interest, the two states can either:

(a) Move their common border to meet the the point's new location.
(b) Keep the original border intact.

If you look at the Texas-New Mexico border from a 10,000' perspective, you'd
swear the western border were the Rio Grande. In some areas however, it's
not.

In the 19th century, Texas and the New Mexico territory defined the western
border on the aforementioned river. Problem was, the river westerly
diverted in the 20th century. What did NM and TX do about? Nothing
actually. The historic border was kept intact. Don't be surprised if you
notice that a racetrack to the east of the Rio Grande and belonging to New
Mexico. Also take notice that the Country Club neighbourhood of El Paso
lies west of "el rio".

So the next time you look at a political map of TX and NM, be assured that
the squiggly land border is not a product of overly serious
errymandering -- it's essentially the preservation of a 19th century
agreement!

Cheers,

Carl Rogers
"Adding human experience to transportology"
********
Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL):
http://wwtl.info
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete coverage of international roads and railways.
Since 2000, we offer several photographs, videos and
Virtual 360 demonstrations -- free of charge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********

In article >,
"Carl Rogers" > wrote:

> So the next time you look at a political map of TX and NM, be assured that
> the squiggly land border is not a product of overly serious
> errymandering -- it's essentially the preservation of a 19th century
> agreement!

The poster child for this type of thing is the lower Mississippi
River. Pull out your trusty Rand McNally road atlas, and check
the path taken by the river compared to various state lines. There
are sections where the river has moved and left parts of states on
the wrong side of the river.

Heading south, there is a section of Missouri on the east side of
the river by Ste Geneviere, and the old city of Kaskaskia, Illinois
on the west side of the river. A cut off loop left a part of
Missouri on the east side of the river near Grand Tower. This
happens twice in Kentucky, and then occurs on a regular basis
starting in Tennessee. There is a double loop like this south
of Helena where two adjacent loops were cut off, leaving a
piece of Arkansas on the east side of the river, and a piece
of Mississippi on the west side of the river.

This geographical oddity becomes very dramatic near the city
of Greenville, Mississippi. Greenville was once a river town,
but a change in the river path left its riverfront area miles
from the great river. Former bast sweeping loops in the river
has left the state lines looking like a jigsaw puzzle, while
both the old and new river bridges sit entirely within the
state of Arkansas (both the west and east ends of the bridge
are in Arkansas).

Vicksburg has a similar issue where the river changed course
and left the waterfront dry. The city solved this problem by
rerouting the Yazoo River to flow past the downtown. Tourists
often mistake the small Yazoo River for the mighty Mississippi,
which is over a mile from the historic river landing at Vicksburg.

The river bridges at Natchez cross between Louisiana and
Mississippi, but due to a cut-off loop, US-84 ends up running
parallel to the state line for 8 miles as it heads west away
from the river and the river bridge.

The cut-off loops become a moot point once the river leaves
Mississippi, and runs fully within Louisiana.

The Missouri River also has a few such geographical oddities.
Heading north out of KC, we find that the St. Joseph airport
is on a cut-off loop, and despite being a mile west of the
river, it is fully within the state of Missouri. In another
case, the city of Carter Lake, Iowa, is on the west side
of the Missouri River, and is located between Omaha and the
Omaha Airport, both of which are in Nebraska and on the west
side of the river.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III * * * * * 612-720-2854 * * * * *
Newave Communications * * * * * * * * * * * * http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

Does anything like this happen in the northeast? The longest river or
water state line I know of is the Connecticut River forming most of
the border between Vermont and New Hampshire. I often head north to
Brattleboro, VT and take Exit 3 from I-91 for US Route 5/VT Route 9
East. When walking over into Chesterfield, NH (the state line is only
1/3 mile east from the rotary on US Route 5), the state line sign is
clearly on the west side of the bridge. That's because NH claims much
of the Connecticut River as their territory. It's also why 90% of the
bridge carrying Route 9 over the river was paid for by them, with
Vermont paying for the west landing and the road reshaping on their
side (VT Route 9 passes under a railroad bridge between the rotary and
the bridge).

If it works, this picture was taken from the center of the Connecticut
River bridge. I'm looking south with NH on the left and VT on the
right: http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y32...ML-PICS068.jpg

> wrote in message
...
> Does anything like this happen in the northeast? The longest river or
> water state line I know of is the Connecticut River forming most of
> the border between Vermont and New Hampshire. I often head north to
> Brattleboro, VT and take Exit 3 from I-91 for US Route 5/VT Route 9
> East. When walking over into Chesterfield, NH (the state line is only
> 1/3 mile east from the rotary on US Route 5), the state line sign is
> clearly on the west side of the bridge. That's because NH claims much
> of the Connecticut River as their territory. It's also why 90% of the
> bridge carrying Route 9 over the river was paid for by them, with
> Vermont paying for the west landing and the road reshaping on their
> side (VT Route 9 passes under a railroad bridge between the rotary and
> the bridge).


In the East, boundaries running on one side or the other of a river rather
than right down the middle are sometimes the result of colonial land grants.
For example, the Potomac River boundary between Maryland and DC on the one
hand, and Virginia and West Virginia on the other, runs along the west bank
of the Potomac. Indeed, D.C. includes some land on the Virginia side of the
main Potomac channel, so the George Washington Parkway passes briefly from
Virginia to DC before returning to Virginia. All because the colonial land
grant establishing Maryland gave the river to Maryland.

--
Oscar Voss - - Arlington VA

my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://home.comcast.net/~oscar.voss/
Hawaii Highways: http://www.hawaiihighways.com/

On May 24, 8:19 am, wrote:
> Does anything like this happen in the northeast?

Two examples, actually. I thought I had a third one, maybe it will
come back to me.

#1: Harlem River, north side of Manhattan: A former bend in the
"river" is now straight, leaving a neighborhood of Manhattan north of
the river, surrounded by the Bronx, just off of US 9/Broadway.
#2: Delaware River, southern New Jersey: Two pieces of land, one much
bigger than the other, belong to Delaware but can only be walked to
from NJ. This is made possible because Delaware owns the entire river
up to the historic shore of NJ.

writes:

>Does anything like this happen in the northeast? The longest river or
>water state line I know of is the Connecticut River forming most of
>the border between Vermont and New Hampshire. I often head north to
>Brattleboro, VT and take Exit 3 from I-91 for US Route 5/VT Route 9
>East. When walking over into Chesterfield, NH (the state line is only
>1/3 mile east from the rotary on US Route 5), the state line sign is
>clearly on the west side of the bridge. That's because NH claims much
>of the Connecticut River as their territory. It's also why 90% of the
>bridge carrying Route 9 over the river was paid for by them, with
>Vermont paying for the west landing and the road reshaping on their
>side (VT Route 9 passes under a railroad bridge between the rotary and
>the bridge).

When the NH/VT state line was defined, it was defined as the west shore of
the river (along the low water mark, I believe), not the center of the
river like most river boundaries. There have been some small shifts since
then, leaving a few small pieces of NH on the west shore, and the border
in the middle of the river, but nothing like what the Mississippi River
does south of Tennessee.

One of the sillier river boundary definitions happened in the 1930s when
they created the Quabbin Reservoir in western Mass. 4 towns being flooded
were eliminated, with their land area tacked onto adjacent towns. They
redefined the town boundaries along the rivers being flooded, faithfully
following all the squiggles. Then they completed the dams, flooding the
rivers, so they and all their squiggles are long gone, except as town
boundaries in the middle of the reservoir and on maps. (They also shifted
county lines to follow the new town lines)

On Fri, 23 May 2008 23:52:53 -0700, "Carl Rogers"
> wrote:

>Hi Viatologists and Geography Aficionados,
>
>It's a natural occurrenct that land shifts and rivers divert. When state
>borders are defined on geographic points of interest, it presents a gamble
>that mother nature remains complacent. If mother nature takes it course and
>"shifts" the point of interest, the two states can either:
>
>(a) Move their common border to meet the the point's new location.
>(b) Keep the original border intact.
>
>If you look at the Texas-New Mexico border from a 10,000' perspective, you'd
>swear the western border were the Rio Grande. In some areas however, it's
>not.
>
>In the 19th century, Texas and the New Mexico territory defined the western
>border on the aforementioned river. Problem was, the river westerly
>diverted in the 20th century. What did NM and TX do about? Nothing
>actually. The historic border was kept intact. Don't be surprised if you
>notice that a racetrack to the east of the Rio Grande and belonging to New
>Mexico. Also take notice that the Country Club neighbourhood of El Paso
>lies west of "el rio".
>
>So the next time you look at a political map of TX and NM, be assured that
>the squiggly land border is not a product of overly serious
>errymandering -- it's essentially the preservation of a 19th century
>agreement!
>
>Cheers,
>

One of the big concerns in this are has been the Ohio River.
The state of {commonwealth actually) has always claimed the Ohio River
as belonging to them. To within 10 feet of the high water mark on the
opposite shore. That was fine until dams were installed and the high
water mark rose along with it. Causing the other states to lose real
estate.

So in the cases of flooding, and say the water protrudes 200 feet into
Ohio, does mean then that the state of Kentucky is responsible for
cleanup?

Then recently, the state of Georgia is trying to claim that the
original surveyors got the line wrong for dividing Tennessee.
Georgia claiming the line to be a mile north of where it actually is
so that Georgia can tap the resources of the Tennessee River.

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article >,
> "Carl Rogers" > wrote:
>
>> So the next time you look at a political map of TX and NM, be assured that
>> the squiggly land border is not a product of overly serious
>> errymandering -- it's essentially the preservation of a 19th century
>> agreement!
>
> The poster child for this type of thing is the lower Mississippi
> River. Pull out your trusty Rand McNally road atlas, and check
> the path taken by the river compared to various state lines. There
> are sections where the river has moved and left parts of states on
> the wrong side of the river.
>
> Heading south, there is a section of Missouri on the east side of
> the river by Ste Geneviere, and the old city of Kaskaskia, Illinois
> on the west side of the river. A cut off loop left a part of
> Missouri on the east side of the river near Grand Tower. This
> happens twice in Kentucky, and then occurs on a regular basis
> starting in Tennessee. There is a double loop like this south
> of Helena where two adjacent loops were cut off, leaving a
> piece of Arkansas on the east side of the river, and a piece
> of Mississippi on the west side of the river.
>
> This geographical oddity becomes very dramatic near the city
> of Greenville, Mississippi. Greenville was once a river town,
> but a change in the river path left its riverfront area miles
> from the great river. Former bast sweeping loops in the river
> has left the state lines looking like a jigsaw puzzle, while
> both the old and new river bridges sit entirely within the
> state of Arkansas (both the west and east ends of the bridge
> are in Arkansas).
>
> Vicksburg has a similar issue where the river changed course
> and left the waterfront dry. The city solved this problem by
> rerouting the Yazoo River to flow past the downtown. Tourists
> often mistake the small Yazoo River for the mighty Mississippi,
> which is over a mile from the historic river landing at Vicksburg.
>
> The river bridges at Natchez cross between Louisiana and
> Mississippi, but due to a cut-off loop, US-84 ends up running
> parallel to the state line for 8 miles as it heads west away
> from the river and the river bridge.
>
> The cut-off loops become a moot point once the river leaves
> Mississippi, and runs fully within Louisiana.
>
> The Missouri River also has a few such geographical oddities.
> Heading north out of KC, we find that the St. Joseph airport
> is on a cut-off loop, and despite being a mile west of the
> river, it is fully within the state of Missouri. In another
> case, the city of Carter Lake, Iowa, is on the west side
> of the Missouri River, and is located between Omaha and the
> Omaha Airport, both of which are in Nebraska and on the west
> side of the river.
>
> -john-
>

During the Flood of 93 there was much concern about this type of thing,
both for state lines and for county lines. North of St. Louis there was
a concern that the Missouri River would carve a new path through St.
Charles County and connect to the Mississippi 20 miles upstream, cutting
off the eastern 1/3 of St. Charles County. There was also a possibility
that the southern 1/2 of Calhoun County, IL would get cut off, or end up
connected to Missouri much like Kaskaskia is. Or, worse, just become
part of the river bed.

Take care,
Rich

God bless the USA

--
Pat Paulsen (1927-1997) for President - 2008

Even though he's dead it makes about much sense
to vote for him as it does for the choices
that we have who are living. At least he's not
going change his position on anything.

"Steve A." > wrote in message
...
> On May 24, 8:19 am, wrote:
>> Does anything like this happen in the northeast?
>
> Two examples, actually. I thought I had a third one, maybe it will
> come back to me.
>
> #1: Harlem River, north side of Manhattan: A former bend in the
> "river" is now straight, leaving a neighborhood of Manhattan north of
> the river, surrounded by the Bronx, just off of US 9/Broadway.


That sounds like an example of the general default rule in these matters,
that a sudden "avulsive" change of a river's course doesn't change the
boundary, while gradual changes by "accretion" (such as a river eroding one
bank and building up the other) do move the boundary to follow the river's
new course.

Of course, this general rule can be overridden in specific instances.

--
Oscar Voss - - Arlington VA

my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://home.comcast.net/~oscar.voss/
Hawaii Highways: http://www.hawaiihighways.com/

Oscar Voss wrote:
> "Steve A." > wrote in message
> ...
>> On May 24, 8:19 am, wrote:
>>> Does anything like this happen in the northeast?
>>
>> Two examples, actually. I thought I had a third one, maybe it will
>> come back to me.
>>
>> #1: Harlem River, north side of Manhattan: A former bend in the
>> "river" is now straight, leaving a neighborhood of Manhattan north of
>> the river, surrounded by the Bronx, just off of US 9/Broadway.
>
>
> That sounds like an example of the general default rule in these
> matters, that a sudden "avulsive" change of a river's course doesn't
> change the boundary, while gradual changes by "accretion" (such as a
> river eroding one bank and building up the other) do move the boundary
> to follow the river's new course.
>
> Of course, this general rule can be overridden in specific instances.

The Indiana-Kentucky border on the Ohio River is fixed at the north
shore of the river as surveyed many years ago, and the river has moved
in several places since the boundary was set. The biggest piece of KY
that's north of the river is just south of Evansville IN. It's big
enough that a good sized horse racing track (with betting) is on that
land. Indiana doesn't allow betting on the horses, so that track gets a
lot of traffic from the southwestern Indiana. See:

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/download.php?Number=675547

Pat