U.S. General Accounting Office
Survey on Food Security Act Conservation Compliance (GAO-03-492SP)
Q23b. 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 variance for compliance violations that are considered technical and minor in nature.

  Significantly strengthened (percent) Strengthened (percent) Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent) Weakened (percent) Significantly weakend (percent) Number of respondents
Alabama 2.4 22.0 53.7 19.5 2.4 41
Arkansas 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 0.0 18
California 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 0.0 14
Colorado 0.0 39.4 45.5 15.2 0.0 33
Florida 0.0 38.5 53.8 7.7 0.0 13
Georgia 2.0 29.4 58.8 9.8 0.0 51
Iowa 2.6 26.3 47.4 19.7 3.9 76
Idaho 5.3 36.8 47.4 10.5 0.0 19
Illinois 1.4 30.0 52.9 14.3 1.4 70
Indiana 0.0 13.5 53.8 25.0 7.7 52
Kansas 0.0 19.3 60.2 14.5 6.0 83
Kentucky 4.5 29.9 58.2 6.0 1.5 67
Louisiana 4.3 13.0 78.3 4.3 0.0 23
Maryland 18.2 9.1 63.6 9.1 0.0 11
Michigan 0.0 9.1 81.8 6.1 3.0 33
Minnesota 1.7 15.0 65.0 13.3 5.0 60
Missouri 4.2 22.5 62.0 11.3 0.0 71
Mississippi 1.7 22.0 71.2 5.1 0.0 59
Montana 0.0 34.3 54.3 11.4 0.0 35
North Carolina 3.8 19.2 59.6 13.5 3.8 52
North Dakota 6.8 13.6 56.8 22.7 0.0 44
Nebraska 1.5 26.9 47.8 19.4 4.5 67
New Mexico 0.0 23.5 64.7 11.8 0.0 17
New York 0.0 25.7 62.9 8.6 2.9 35
Ohio 0.0 23.4 61.7 14.9 0.0 47
Oklahoma 2.0 30.0 46.0 16.0 6.0 50
Oregon 0.0 37.5 43.8 18.8 0.0 16
Pennsylvania 0.0 36.4 60.6 3.0 0.0 33
South Carolina 5.3 15.8 73.7 5.3 0.0 19
South Dakota 0.0 20.8 47.9 25.0 6.3 48
Tennessee 0.0 22.2 62.2 13.3 2.2 45
Texas 0.9 26.7 56.0 12.9 3.4 116
Utah 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 0.0 8
Virginia 3.0 30.3 51.5 15.2 0.0 33
Washington 0.0 25.0 60.0 10.0 5.0 20
Wisconsin 0.0 14.9 63.8 21.3 0.0 47
West Virginia 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 18
States with fewer than 15 respondents 2.0 20.0 68.0 10.0 0.0 50
All States 1.8 23.7 58.6 13.6 2.3 1,594