NavList:

After further research on this I am convinced that the below statement by Philip is what was meant by the ruling.

CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 33 and 50 spell out the definition of the main channel of any waterway in the US. Cases have been heard before the US Supreme Court, regarding this issue, many times and the court has always upheld the definition of waterways defined by the CFRs. A Federal judge cannot, by his/her office alone, redefine the laws and definitions in any CFR.

The case was discussed on another list. It turned out that the rulling was about flooded over land. Not tidal. In other words, of your land was flooded over you still owned it and any one who floated a boat over it to fish  without your permission was trespassing.

Least that's the way I understood it.

 Philip



This is how it was also explained to me earlier today by someone I know who is a lawyer. Whether that’s really the case or not remains to be seen in the enviro-political scene and the interpretation of laws of this country at the present time. If not viewed as above the ruling sure flies in the face of  traditional rights pertaining to waterways.