If I read the decision correctly, it may add a little sanity to the wetlands controversy. What I read said that in order to be considered a wetland - the area would have to directly impact an adjacent, navigable waterway. Which would mean, that mud puddle in the middle of your field wouldn't be considered a wetland. (which I believe is the way it should be, if it's a genuine wetland that's okay, but if it's just a low spot, the law shouldn't apply).
You guys are correct CB has it right even though it is not a federal issue it will still could be a county issue. What I read is that the fed's don't want to get involved they want the states to handle it.
What I read, said they used to consider any drainage ditch a wetland, because sooner or later it led to a stream, river, etc. which was navigable. The new wording shortens the distance to-adjacent to, and having a direct impact on, a navigable waterway. It's all open to interpretation, that's why they're lawyers, and why they word it that way - keeps them all in business and allows them to find loopholes for their friends.