Boundaries Matter

A side effect of all this accurate geospatial data we've been having lately is that where the boundaries of things actually run is starting to matter to folks. Two recent interstate boundary disputes have placed placing accurate boundary lines in sharp focus.

The boundary between Delaware (my state) and New Jersey, for example, runs along a part of the New Jersey side of shoreline of the Delaware River. This is based on the original land-grant language from the King of England and on subsequent US Supreme Court decisions (See Sandy Schenck's informative Delaware's State Boundaries [Info Series No. 6]).

This went largely unremarked (with some occasional spats between the two state governments) until this century, when a proposal to build a Liquid Natural Gas terminal on land in New Jersey, but with a pier extending into Delaware, was nixed by Delaware under the state's Coastal Zone Act. New Jersey was not pleased. They sued and the two states are waiting now for another decision from the Supreme Court.

While we wait, a pair of public policy professors from Rutgers University (in New Jersey) has published an Op-Ed (Negotiate another way) in Delaware's largest daily newspaper proposing that the two states consider a less adversarial approach. They argue that it is unhelpful to base discussions on this issue on who "owns" the river:

Reconciling these positions framed this way is unlikely in an adversarial process. Instead, what is needed is an interest-based approach -- not contentions over who owns what, but rather how the river and its banks can be managed in a way to benefit the economic and environmental needs of both states.

On the other hand, a rising Delaware politician has floated a more direct proposal on his First State Politics blog: sell half of the river to New Jersey. Mr. Burris, who recently decided not to run for Governor (but held onto the notion of someday running), suggests that working out a real-estate deal with New Jersey might help solve Delaware's recent fiscal woes:

...if Dover is not willing to cut spending, they need to come up with a way to find new revenue, and a lot of it, in order to cover the budget gap and provide for our immense and growing infrastructure needs.

Though Dover is not exactly the land of big ideas right now, one outside-the-box idea they could explore is this: sell New Jersey their half of the Delaware River for $5 billion.

This may be no more than an attention-generating straw-man proposal. Mr. Burris remains a GOP activist and active critic of Delaware's democratic incumbent. But it does suggest the value of where boundaries get drawn.

And so does a recent story out of Georgia and Tennessee. The two states have a disagreement over where their common boundary should lie. At issue is whether a particular reservoir is in Tennessee (as it now seems to be), in Georgia, or in both states. Georgia has a strong thirst for additional water resources; strong enough that a resolution has been introduced in the state legislature to move the state boundary about a mile north, annexing (a wet) part of Tennessee.

This is not just based on the need for water, of course. The existing boundary appears to have been drawn in error back in 1818, missing the 35th parallel where it was planned to lie, by about a mile.

It is interesting to compare news coverage of this issue from each state.

In Georgia, today's article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is headlined "Mapmaker's border error raises new water war front:"

In 1818, a University of Georgia mathematician named James Camak established the boundary between Georgia and Tennessee.

He screwed up. Georgia, especially during times of drought, has paid the price ever since.

The story in Friday's Tennessean, on the other hand, is a bit more to the point: Georgians want access to Tenn. water).

The resolution, which has passed early hurdles but has not received final passage, claims that the boundary was erroneously surveyed in 1818 and that Georgia has never accepted it. The resolution calls for the creation of a "Georgia-Tennessee Boundary Line Commission" that would perform joint surveys and change the line to the "definite and true" boundary line: exactly following the 35th parallel.

The Tennessean focuses on local reaction to the proposal, including that of a resident who had moved from Georgia to Tennessee and does not want to be re-claimed:

Kyle, 69, said he has no desire to be annexed by Georgia, which he gladly departed because of its taxes, and hopes the idea is "just a pipe dream."

"If it ever came to that, I would probably move," he said. "I've got seven acres here, and we're set up pretty well, but I wouldn't ever want to be in the state of Georgia again, to be honest with you."

The Georgia resolution may be mostly a negotiating tactic designed to focus attention on a need to share resources across state lines. As in the Delaware/New Jersey dispute, the 21st century argument stems from, and looks back to, mapping and surveying practices of a much earlier time.

And both situations can teach us the importance of getting it right.