Skip to main content

View Diary: Midday openthread (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's a similar situation in the US (7+ / 0-)

    between the states of Arizona and California, where the southern reaches of the Colorado River have wandered quite a bit over the years.  Every so often there is a commission which redraws the official boundary.  The last one was (I think) about ten or twelve years ago.

    Incidentally, the two states very nearly went to war over Colorado River water in the early part of the 20th Century.  Both had state militias drawn up on each side of the river, ready to fire--the federal government had to intervene.

    I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

    by Pragmatus on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:49:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Northern Islands of Japan/Russia (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hoof32

      Japan couldn't have cared less about the islands until the late 19th century.  But nations get greedy. Japan invaded Taiwan, Korea, China, areas throughout the South Pacific, and even set up its own dream colony in Manchuria.  But in the last days of WW2, seeing that Japan could not defend Hokkaido and the Northern Islands, Russia pounced (Truman drew the line at Hokkaido).  Now Japan wants the islands back -- because it wasn't as if, prior to 1945, they had been, like, playing for keeps.  Of course they would have given all that stuff back that they conquered!  Of course!  And so should Russia.  

      Last year, Medvedev was willing to make a concession.  He didn't give them the islands, but he did give them a nicely plump middle finger.  

    •  Look at the Mississippi River.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pragmatus

      ....where Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee meet.

      It looks like the Mississippi is trying to make an oxbow lake by making a direct path - the border between Missouri and Kentucky/Tennessee is in the middle of the channel, but the Kentucky/Tennessee border is a line.

      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

      by varro on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:42:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see how this is in dispute (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hoof32

      It should be based off of where the river was.  Otherwise, one side could make a land grab by doing something to purposely redirect the river.  

      •  This is the problem. (0+ / 0-)

        Say Farmer Jones has a nice piece of arable land next to a big river.  Suddenly the river changes course and flows over Jones's property instead of its old course, while creating another piece of dry, arable land where it used to flow.

        By your recommendation, Farmer Jones would be out of luck.  His land would remain exactly what it was, only now it would be under x-number of feet of water and no good to him.

        Boundary commissions are set up to deal with these very issues.  In this case, the newly-dry land would probably be deeded to Farmer Jones in place of his old land, because otherwise who would own the new land?

        I'm not sixty-two—I'm fifty-twelve!

        by Pragmatus on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 03:54:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site