<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in GE Alfalfa Case</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/ge-alfalfa-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/ge-alfalfa-case/</link>
	<description>Supporting economic and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 20:35:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake Claro</title>
		<link>http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/ge-alfalfa-case/#comment-29045</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake Claro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainableagriculture.net/?p=5878#comment-29045</guid>
		<description>Though the project chopping could occur, wouldn&#039;t that violate consideration of cumulative impacts which is a requirement of NEPA--Didn&#039;t Mass Vs. EPA confirm the illegality of ignoring cumulative impacts?  I realize that the above touches upon this, and that chopping regardless can still occur without diligent oversight, but there is recourse to such agency actions, correct?  Thanks for the analysis--I&#039;ll be watching this closely now and will have to read over the full ruling to get a better sense of the legal issues (with some assistance from my Enviro Law text).  Also, could states challenge a limited action?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though the project chopping could occur, wouldn&#8217;t that violate consideration of cumulative impacts which is a requirement of NEPA&#8211;Didn&#8217;t Mass Vs. EPA confirm the illegality of ignoring cumulative impacts?  I realize that the above touches upon this, and that chopping regardless can still occur without diligent oversight, but there is recourse to such agency actions, correct?  Thanks for the analysis&#8211;I&#8217;ll be watching this closely now and will have to read over the full ruling to get a better sense of the legal issues (with some assistance from my Enviro Law text).  Also, could states challenge a limited action?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

