<?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: [Stuff] The Corps of Engineers Says</title>
	<atom:link href="http://kealliance.org/2012/03/12/stuff-the-corps-of-engineers-says/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://kealliance.org/2012/03/12/stuff-the-corps-of-engineers-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stuff-the-corps-of-engineers-says</link>
	<description>Kootenai Environmental Alliance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 03:03:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Breaking News: Court Rejects Corps of Engineers Arguments in Sacramento Levee Trees Case &#124; Kootenai Environmental Alliance</title>
		<link>http://kealliance.org/2012/03/12/stuff-the-corps-of-engineers-says/#comment-1041</link>
		<dc:creator>Breaking News: Court Rejects Corps of Engineers Arguments in Sacramento Levee Trees Case &#124; Kootenai Environmental Alliance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kealliance.org/?p=2984#comment-1041</guid>
		<description>[...] We’ve only skimmed the document, and our lawyers are certainly reviewing it very carefully. However, the Court appears to be quite adamant that conservation groups have standing to bring a lawsuit, and that the Corps will need to provide the conservation organizations with a more complete set of documents on which it purports to base its levee policy. Without the full administrative record, the Court was skeptical of the Corps claims that the levee policy was not subject to judicial review.  This was an issue simmering in our case. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] We’ve only skimmed the document, and our lawyers are certainly reviewing it very carefully. However, the Court appears to be quite adamant that conservation groups have standing to bring a lawsuit, and that the Corps will need to provide the conservation organizations with a more complete set of documents on which it purports to base its levee policy. Without the full administrative record, the Court was skeptical of the Corps claims that the levee policy was not subject to judicial review.  This was an issue simmering in our case. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charmaine Smith-Warden</title>
		<link>http://kealliance.org/2012/03/12/stuff-the-corps-of-engineers-says/#comment-973</link>
		<dc:creator>Charmaine Smith-Warden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://kealliance.org/?p=2984#comment-973</guid>
		<description>Advocate for the trees we must, as the reasoning behind the monetary decision to destroy the Dike Road natural monuments, appears shaky at best.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Advocate for the trees we must, as the reasoning behind the monetary decision to destroy the Dike Road natural monuments, appears shaky at best.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
