Is that legal advice I can take to court with me?

I think the US Sup. Court just let the Core know they were an out of control entity who wanted to exercise power over large parts of the country that was not given them.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2006
RAPANOS ET UX., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf

Isolated ponds are not �waters of the United States� in their own right, see SWANCC, supra, at 167, 171, and present no boundary-drawing problem justifying the invocation of such ecological factors. Thus, only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are �waters of the United States� in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between the two, are �adjacent� to such waters and covered by the Act.

In deciding whether to grant or deny a permit, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) exercises the discretion of an enlightened despot, relying on such factors as �economics,� �aesthetics,� �recreation,� and �in general, the needs and welfare of the people,�


In SWANCC, we considered the application of the Corps� �Migratory Bird Rule� to �an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois.� 531 U. S., at 162. Observing that �[i]t was the significant nexus between the wetlands and �navigable waters� that informed our reading of the CWA in Riverside Bayview,� id., at 167 (emphasis added), we held that Riverside Bayview did not establish �that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water.� 531 U. S., at 168 (emphasis deleted). On the contrary, we held that �nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters,� id., at 171�which, unlike the wetlands at issue in Riverside Bayview, did not �actually abut] on a navigable waterway,� 531 U. S., at 167�were not included as �waters of the United States.�

In sum, on its only plausible interpretation, the phrase �the waters of the United States� includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water �forming geographic features� that are described in ordinary parlance as �streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.� See Webster�s Second 2882. The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. The Corps� expansive interpretation of the �the waters of the United States� is thus not �based on a permissible construction of the statute.� Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984).
http://www.pondboss.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=002444;p=1

If the 6th Cir. and the Sup. Ct. are not sure about the Cores jurisdiction then how can any of us be.

BTW I think (lets hope) our private property rights are protected by the Constitution which trumps the CWA.