Strange Maps

March 6, 2008

252 – A River Runs Through It: the Chamizal Dispute (1895-1963)

Filed under: Uncategorized — strangemaps @ 10:42 am

chazimal_dispute_map.gif

Ever since the Mexican-American War (1845-49), the Rio Grande has been the border between the two nations from El Paso to the Gulf, giving Texas a natural southern boundary. Fixing the border on a river might seem a tidy solution. But while rivers last longer than most treaties, they are also bound by none. When a river shifts, it shifts, treaty or no.

Does the border then trace the old riverbed or the new one? Naturally, both parties would prefer the outcome that left them the most territory (and the other the least). A war, anyone? International law has a rule for this particular clash between fluctuation and demarcation: if the river changes course gradually, through erosion, the border follows. If the river radically changes course, through avulsion, the border should remain where it was before.

By 1895, the Rio Grande – and the US – had moved south about 600 acres (2,4 sq. km), a disputed area known as El Chamizal. Mexicans filed claims to the land south of the old riverbed (but north of the new one), an arbitration commission was established and it eventually proclaimed in 1911 that each country should receive part of the disputed area:
The US was to receive the area between the riverbed as originally surveyed in 1852 and the riverbed as it had shifted southwards by 1864, the rest going to Mexico, even though this was to the north of the later riverbed of the Rio Grande.

The US did not accept this split decision, leading to sustained tension with Mexico and the development of a curious zone in El Chamizal, called Cordova Island. This was a virtual Mexican island in the disputed zone, leading to a grey zone that fostered crime and illegal border crossings.

In 1963, US president JF Kennedy and Mexican president Adolfo Lopez Mateos agreed to settle the Chamizal Dispute along the lines of the 1911 recommendations.

• The US and Mexico each received 193 acres of Cordova Island;
• Mexico received 366 acres west of Cordova Island, and 264 acres to the east of it.
• Mexico and the US shared the cost of a man-made channel that would (or should) prevent further blurring of the border.
• US citizens in the Chamizal area were relocated and compensated for the loss of their homes and businesses.
• A Chamizal National Memorial, an amphitheatre, a bookstore and a museum were established in the area, which every October hosts several cultural events such as the Border Folk Festival and the Siglo del Oro drama festival.

This map, found at this page at answers.com, would have benefited from a better dating of the three sets of riverbeds, which I assume must be the ones from 1852 (’old boundary’), 1864 (’Relocated River Channel’) and around 1895 (’Rio Grande’).


37 Comments »

  1. Feh. These nationalistic disputes are nonsensical. Would it really make much difference to either the US or Mexico who gets a few hundred acres of land?

    My preferred resolution would have been that when the river moves, it remains the border – and the acquiring government must offer to pay fair market value to the previous land owners and cover any necessary resettlement costs.

    Comment by David — March 6, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

  2. why can’t we just relax and leave it?we have enough, now really, i don’t wanna sound weird, but i think we can just be christians and leave iot the way it is.peace!!

    Comment by marybarbott — March 6, 2008 @ 1:13 pm

  3. I wonder if there’s even been (or ever will be) a dispute with one nation claiming the other has unfairly induced the river to shift unfavorably to the first nation.

    Comment by TheJay — March 6, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

  4. Similar boundary adjustments have taken place between Finland and Sweden, which in turn made me think of another, far weirder boundary adjustment between the two. Wikipedia has a nice map showing the division of the little island Märket here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket

    Comment by Mikael Parkvall — March 6, 2008 @ 3:23 pm

  5. There’s an interesting chapter in the book Slide Mountain on the same sort of thing between two states and an Indian nation. Essentially, they had to go to court to attempt to prove avulsion.

    Comment by Andrew — March 6, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

  6. The accreation/avulsion rule is one of those first year of law school oddity rules they mention. The same rule applies to river boundaries between individuals, not just nations.

    Comment by UberMitch — March 6, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

  7. Note that most of the content at answers.com is lifted directly from Wikipedia. The original article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamizal (where the above map was recently removed for copyright reasons.) A less “encumbered” map might be found at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/national_parks/chamizal_rivermap97.pdf

    Comment by Michael Newton — March 6, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

  8. @ Mikael Parkvall:
    Hello Mikael, Märket has been talked about on Strange maps – albeit a long time ago, and with a far less ‘clean’ map!

    Here: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/6-market-reef/

    Comment by strangemaps — March 6, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

  9. Naturally, both parties would prefer the outcome that left them the most territory (and the other the least).

    Why is this so obvious? Surely a more overriding concern would be to have a clearly defined boundary that could be more easily controlled. Exactly what the advantage is of having your country enlarged by a few square kilometres of desert, isn’t clear to me. I’m not sure how it could even appeal to ‘national pride’ or any of the other widely prevalent forms of institutionalised ignorance.

    But the frequency of insignificant border disputes the world over suggests that some perverts, somewhere, get some kind of emotional satisfaction from it. Very weird.

    Comment by SM — March 6, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

  10. We’ve just report
    the top blogs of the day

    Comment by frmad — March 7, 2008 @ 2:11 am

  11. Why does it matter who gets the land in a border dispute?

    Because if you have a house on the disputed land, it matters a lot, that’s why. If my house were theoretically on Cordova Island, and I’d lived there all my life as an American citizen, and now it was Mexican territory, I can assure you that I would not be very happy about that outcome at all. Even if I’d been reimbursed, I still lost a house that represented more than just property.

    Comment by El Santo — March 7, 2008 @ 2:15 am

  12. I have an old newspaper clipping that covers a similar topic regarding the border along Arizona. In this case, the diversions from the Colorado River are so great, that the old course of the river, which defined the border, is totally dry…so WHAT is the border now? You can read the article if you search the NYTimes archive online for:

    U.S.-Mexican Border: A Shifting Line in the Mud

    By Anthony DePalma
    May 7, 1996

    Comment by lichanos — March 7, 2008 @ 2:35 am

  13. @9:

    Land gained from a shifting river (IE. Former riverbed/bank) is probably fairly rich from the sediment and not likely to be inherently “desert”. Also echo #11. Finally, if there was an important (maybe military) installation on one side of the border (As there frequently ARE) and it is suddenly in foreign territory, it could easily cause trouble.

    Comment by Lurker — March 7, 2008 @ 2:37 am

  14. This kind of thing also happens in the United States to a less-exciting intra-national extent on the Mississippi River – Carter Lake, Iowa (I think part of Council Bluffs, Iowa across the river) is almost surrounded by Omaha, Nebraska. There are no bridges to Iowa from it on its southern river border – you’d have to go through Nebraska first to get to Iowa!

    I wonder if this also happens in Europe.

    Comment by Qiu Jieqiang — March 7, 2008 @ 6:10 am

  15. Sorry, make that the Missouri River.

    Comment by Qiu Jieqiang — March 7, 2008 @ 6:12 am

  16. IMO, the border treaties based on geological formations, including river beds, active or not, should be based on the formation at the time of the treaty, either by convention, or by specific terms of the treaty.

    In the vein of Carter Lake IA, is a community called Boundary Bay, which consists of a peninsula that is physically part of Canada (south of Vancouver BC), whose souther tip is within the agreed USA border. The only way to reach that land is by boat (I don’t think ferry service is offered though), or by car, through Canada. It has its own border control station(s).

    The is also Derby (I think that is the name), VT, where the town, specifically the library, is part in the USA, and part in Canada.

    Comment by cks2008 — March 7, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

  17. quote “In the vein of Carter Lake IA, is a community called Boundary Bay, which consists of a peninsula that is physically part of Canada (south of Vancouver BC), whose souther tip is within the agreed USA border. The only way to reach that land is by boat (I don’t think ferry service is offered though), or by car, through Canada. It has its own border control station(s).”

    IS CARTER LAKE SO FUCKING BIG TO HAVE A SMALL TOWN IN BETWEEN AND HAVE AKL THAT BORDER CONTROL STATIONS AND SHIT ?, well anyways this is a diplomatic issue and when it comes to diplomacy .. leave the issue to diplomats or stand together and raise ur voice in person .. dont keep typing comments on blogs lol…. no offence.. to anyone…. Nancy

    Comment by nancyjones28 — March 7, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

  18. Sorry if that post sounded a bit harsh lol.. i just speak my words and i love rivers Nancy

    Comment by nancyjones28 — March 7, 2008 @ 9:13 pm

  19. Whats maybe not clear to the live and let live folks is that this stretch runs directly through two international cities. It’s not out in the middle of nowhere Texas/Mexico.

    Comment by Douglas — March 7, 2008 @ 9:26 pm

  20. Yes, clearly in many particular cases, there might be one reason or another why a country (or its citizens) would want the land. But I was objecting to the implication that, in general, when a border shifts, each country involved would obviously want the land. Although, as I conceded, it is probably pretty ‘normal’ to want such land, working on the principles that what’s “mine” is “good”, and when “mine” gets bigger, that’s “gooder”

    Comment by SM — March 7, 2008 @ 11:24 pm

  21. This sort of thing can result from human intervention as well. The Marble Hill neighborhood in NYC is part of the borough of Manhattan, even though it lies on the north side of the Harlem River. That is because in 1895, the Harlem River Ship Channel was dug out, making the link to the Hudson a straight line, and cutting off the 75 acres of Marble Hill. Later the old course was filled in. Marble Hill is remains legally part of Manhattan, but has a Bronx area code and ZIP code.

    Comment by Rich Rostrom — March 8, 2008 @ 12:26 am

  22. If land can change “ownership” over time because a river changes course, what happens to the people (if any) who live on that land?

    Is it even theoretically possible for a citizen of Mexico to become a US citizen or vice versa?

    Comment by Pat — March 8, 2008 @ 10:55 pm

  23. You might be interested in this old post at Pruned about changes in the course of the Mississippi River but with no corresponding redrawing of state boundaries.

    One site where this phenomenon occurred is at Kaskaskia, the first state capital of Illinois. Decades after the capital was moved to another city, Kaskaskia found itself joined to another state, Missouri, after a major flood. It would have been more interesting, though, if it was still the capital at the time of the shift.

    Comment by Alexander Trevi — March 9, 2008 @ 11:55 pm

  24. [...] The Chamizal Dismute By 1895, the Rio Grande – and the US – had moved south about 600 acres (2,4 sq. km), a disputed area known as El Chamizal. (tags: history politics) [...]

    Pingback by links for 2008-03-17 « Skid Roche — March 17, 2008 @ 8:25 am

  25. On the topic of Carter Lake: Yes, you must go through Nebraska to reach Carter Lake, as it is on the west side of the Missouri River. More curiously, there’s a roughly similar sized chunk of Nebraska that is east of the Missouri. DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge is on the Nebraska side of the border, a bit north of Omaha. See this link to see it in Google Maps.

    Comment by David — March 18, 2008 @ 1:16 am

  26. Again another great history lesson. Being a Canuck something like this was never taught to us in school.

    Comment by cyclepromo — April 9, 2008 @ 2:06 am

  27. I was told there is a river that runs under the Mississippi. Is that true? If so, what is it called? It may have been a long time ago.

    Comment by Karen Monfils — June 21, 2008 @ 12:01 am

  28. The war actually took place from 1846-48.

    Comment by James M. — June 21, 2008 @ 6:32 am

  29. riverbed application acceleration…

    I’ ve had occasion to try out taksi, it worked well for GDI capture, but for Direct3D capture on the engine I used it failed in CTaksiDX9:: GetFrame during GetRenderTargetData. I’ ve found a solution by disabling the avi feature (I didn’ t need i…

    Trackback by riverbed application acceleration — November 9, 2008 @ 9:14 am

  30. مركز تحميل

    Comment by y22icom — March 27, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

  31. I am very enjoy your blog, your blog is very true of the bar, hoping to see you more exciting content! I wish you have a happy day!

    Comment by startrekdvd — April 1, 2009 @ 6:49 am

  32. thank you

    Comment by Tony — May 4, 2009 @ 3:34 am

  33. thanks for this map
    good 
    luck

    ..

    Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 8:51 am

  34. thanks for this map
    good 
    luck

    Comment by Solomon — May 11, 2009 @ 8:51 am

  35. merci

    Comment by aspicco . — May 17, 2009 @ 6:39 am

  36. Vielen Dank

    Comment by moon — July 3, 2009 @ 5:06 am

  37. Muchas gracias

    Comment by sun — July 4, 2009 @ 7:32 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.