Page 1 of 1

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 3:00 pm
by PLS8284
It was never actually a straight line, once the obelisks were set. The obelisks that mark the boundary were accepted into the Treaty of Guadlupe Hidalgo as 6 and later 53 monuments agreed upon by both countries as the border. So, once set and agreed upon, they were never a straight line from 1 Spanish league south of the southernmost part of San Diego Bay to the intersection of the Colorado and Gila rivers, as originally intended.

http://www.ibwc.state.gov/

Check the website above for some more interesting information.

Regards,

John

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 5:28 pm
by E_Page
I haven't read the treaty, but I would imagine that if the monuments or the survey was what was agreed to, then the monuments would still hold given any gradual or minor crustal motion. I have no idea how it would be worked out if there were ever any major shifting.

1 meter is probably considered fairly minor along that border.

Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:08 pm
by mpallamary
There's this great book out there that goes into this issue in relatively exhaustive detail.

;)

See: http://www.amazon.com/Lay-Land-History- ... 1410702847


- The Lay of the Land presents an informative history about the development of San Diego. The story begins with the liberation of Texas and continues with the subsequent war with Mexico. Mr. Pallamary’s book follows General Stephen Kearny and his corps of surveyors as they mapped and marched their way westward to California. The controversial actions of The Great Pathfinder, John Charles Frémont are also covered, as are early encounters between military Surveyors and Native Americans. The book also covers the challenges involved with locating the International Boundary Line between the United States and Mexico as specified by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mr. Pallamary also provides informative insight into the creation of the government townships and section lines that govern the location of land throughout Southern California. Additional subjects contained in this informative manuscript include the impact of the land squatter movement on San Diego, the influence of the contentious No-Fence Law upon land settlement, the establishment of the San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian, and determination of the county boundary lines.

The Lay of the Land also examines the confusing land grant process and the obstacles involved with validating these claims before the United States Land Commission. Another important subject covered by Mr. Pallamary is the expansion of the transcontinental railroad and its impact upon San Diego. A number of the county’s most important engineering projects are also explored, including the relocation of the San Diego River, the transformation of False Bay into Mission Bay and the development of San Diego Harbor. Considerable coverage is provided on the subjects of land fraud, water boundaries, corrupt government Surveyors, and the Great Land Boom of 1887.
Mr. Pallamary also documents the influence of many of the county’s more influential Land Surveyors including George Derby, Andrew Gray, Colonel John Coffee Hays, Cave Couts, Charles Poole, James Pascoe, Charles J. Fox, Myron G. Wheeler, Edwin Capps, Andrew Ervast, and Porter Perrin Wheaton, the Great Wheelbarrow Surveyor.

See: http://www.pallamaryandassociates.com/b ... eLand.html

Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:26 pm
by Ian Wilson
No boundary shift. The coordinates, you know...

Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:47 pm
by mpallamary
Actually there are a couple of different rules to consider. If the bedrock moves, one set of rules apply and if the surface material oves, there is another. If you have a minute check out the movie 2012. Very thought provoking. The attached might also be of interest. A lot of good analysis came out of Alaska.

International law

Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 1:53 pm
by Steve Martin
As I understand it, the Cullen Earthquake has seldom, if ever, been applied in California. The Legislation Committee has been looking into the issues related to earth movements on property boundaries, but there is not a definitive answer right now.

If there is not a definitive answer in California law, there most likely will not be one in International law either. The Treaties between the US and Mexico are where you need to look. Most likely further treaty will be required to settle the issue.

Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:08 pm
by mpallamary
Agreed across the board. After the one I felt tonight, I think there will be some movement (no pun intended).