04-01-2010, 03:56 PM
Am I missing something? Did the court not rule that the land under the water was part of the water way and declaired something like sovereign proerty. It looks like the same kind of law and bill that was in place already other then the wording as been changed. Seams to me once this goes back to court (if it does) the the same ruling would happen and in the last one.
[signature]
[signature]