U.S. General Accounting Office

U.S. General Accounting Office

Survey on Food Security Act Conservation Compliance (GAO-03-492SP)

Q23a. In your county, how did the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of HELC compliance?: Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in program benefits for HELC violations.

Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents

Alabama 0.0 12.2 61.0 19.5 7.3 41

Arkansas 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 0.0 18

California 0.0 7.7 84.6 7.7 0.0 13

Colorado 0.0 12.1 60.6 24.2 3.0 33

Florida 7.7 30.8 53.8 7.7 0.0 13

Georgia 4.3 12.8 63.8 17.0 2.1 47

Iowa 2.6 12.8 37.2 32.1 15.4 78

Idaho 0.0 15.0 55.0 25.0 5.0 20

Illinois 1.5 11.8 44.1 30.9 11.8 68

Indiana 0.0 5.7 49.1 30.2 15.1 53

Kansas 0.0 6.1 63.4 20.7 9.8 82

Kentucky 0.0 17.7 72.6 9.7 0.0 62

Louisiana 0.0 18.2 68.2 9.1 4.5 22

Maryland 0.0 18.2 45.5 27.3 9.1 11

Michigan 0.0 8.8 76.5 11.8 2.9 34

Minnesota 1.7 6.8 64.4 22.0 5.1 59

Missouri 1.5 13.2 70.6 10.3 4.4 68

Mississippi 1.8 17.5 70.2 8.8 1.8 57

Montana 0.0 16.2 62.2 16.2 5.4 37

North Carolina 4.0 10.0 64.0 20.0 2.0 50

North Dakota 0.0 4.7 51.2 32.6 11.6 43

Nebraska 0.0 10.9 50.0 28.1 10.9 64

New Mexico 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 0.0 16

New York 0.0 12.1 72.7 12.1 3.0 33

Ohio 0.0 9.5 64.3 19.0 7.1 42

Oklahoma 0.0 10.6 61.7 19.1 8.5 47

Oregon 0.0 17.6 52.9 17.6 11.8 17

Pennsylvania 0.0 3.2 77.4 12.9 6.5 31

South Carolina 0.0 41.2 58.8 0.0 0.0 17

South Dakota 0.0 10.9 45.7 32.6 10.9 46

Tennessee 0.0 9.5 64.3 21.4 4.8 42

Texas 0.0 14.2 62.3 14.2 9.4 106

Utah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 8

Virginia 3.3 13.3 60.0 23.3 0.0 30

Washington 0.0 5.6 55.6 27.8 11.1 18

Wisconsin 0.0 4.5 68.2 22.7 4.5 44

West Virginia 0.0 0.0 93.8 6.3 0.0 16

States with fewer than 15 respondents 2.3 18.2 75.0 2.3 2.3 44

All States 0.8 11.8 61.4 19.3 6.6 1,530

	Significantly strengthened (percent)	Strengthened (percent)	Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent)	Weakened (percent)	Significantly weakend (percent)	Number of respondents
Alabama	0.0	12.2	61.0	19.5	7.3	41
Arkansas	0.0	22.2	55.6	22.2	0.0	18
California	0.0	7.7	84.6	7.7	0.0	13
Colorado	0.0	12.1	60.6	24.2	3.0	33
Florida	7.7	30.8	53.8	7.7	0.0	13
Georgia	4.3	12.8	63.8	17.0	2.1	47
Iowa	2.6	12.8	37.2	32.1	15.4	78
Idaho	0.0	15.0	55.0	25.0	5.0	20
Illinois	1.5	11.8	44.1	30.9	11.8	68
Indiana	0.0	5.7	49.1	30.2	15.1	53
Kansas	0.0	6.1	63.4	20.7	9.8	82
Kentucky	0.0	17.7	72.6	9.7	0.0	62
Louisiana	0.0	18.2	68.2	9.1	4.5	22
Maryland	0.0	18.2	45.5	27.3	9.1	11
Michigan	0.0	8.8	76.5	11.8	2.9	34
Minnesota	1.7	6.8	64.4	22.0	5.1	59
Missouri	1.5	13.2	70.6	10.3	4.4	68
Mississippi	1.8	17.5	70.2	8.8	1.8	57
Montana	0.0	16.2	62.2	16.2	5.4	37
North Carolina	4.0	10.0	64.0	20.0	2.0	50
North Dakota	0.0	4.7	51.2	32.6	11.6	43
Nebraska	0.0	10.9	50.0	28.1	10.9	64
New Mexico	0.0	6.3	75.0	18.8	0.0	16
New York	0.0	12.1	72.7	12.1	3.0	33
Ohio	0.0	9.5	64.3	19.0	7.1	42
Oklahoma	0.0	10.6	61.7	19.1	8.5	47
Oregon	0.0	17.6	52.9	17.6	11.8	17
Pennsylvania	0.0	3.2	77.4	12.9	6.5	31
South Carolina	0.0	41.2	58.8	0.0	0.0	17
South Dakota	0.0	10.9	45.7	32.6	10.9	46
Tennessee	0.0	9.5	64.3	21.4	4.8	42
Texas	0.0	14.2	62.3	14.2	9.4	106
Utah	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	8
Virginia	3.3	13.3	60.0	23.3	0.0	30
Washington	0.0	5.6	55.6	27.8	11.1	18
Wisconsin	0.0	4.5	68.2	22.7	4.5	44
West Virginia	0.0	0.0	93.8	6.3	0.0	16
States with fewer than 15 respondents	2.3	18.2	75.0	2.3	2.3	44
All States	0.8	11.8	61.4	19.3	6.6	1,530