U.S. General Accounting Office

U.S. General Accounting Office

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

Q40a. In your county, how did each of the following changes in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (farm bill) strengthen or weaken monitoring of wetland conservation compliance?: Instituted good faith exemption allowing graduated reductions in program benefits for wetland conservation violations.

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

Alabama 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 4

Arkansas 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 8

California 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 2

Colorado 0 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 11.1 44.4 22.2 22.2 0.0 9

Georgia 12.5 25.0 25.0 25.0 12.5 8

Iowa 0.0 14.3 38.1 38.1 9.5 21

Idaho 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 1

Illinois 3.2 6.5 61.3 25.8 3.2 31

Indiana 0.0 17.6 35.3 29.4 17.6 17

Kansas 0.0 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 6

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1

Louisiana 0.0 21.4 64.3 7.1 7.1 14

Maryland 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 3

Michigan 0.0 21.4 42.9 21.4 14.3 14

Minnesota 0.0 8.5 46.8 27.7 17.0 47

Missouri 8.7 21.7 34.8 30.4 4.3 23

Mississippi 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 5

Montana 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3

North Carolina 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.0 7

North Dakota 0.0 5.0 45.0 35.0 15.0 20

Nebraska 0.0 13.9 47.2 38.9 0.0 36

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0

New York 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 6

Ohio 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 7

Oklahoma 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 2

Oregon 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 3

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 0.0 8

South Carolina 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2

South Dakota 0.0 16.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 25

Tennessee 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 7

Texas 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 0.0 6

Utah 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1

Virginia 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 5

Washington 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 3

Wisconsin 0.0 7.1 64.3 25.0 3.6 28

West Virginia 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2

States with fewer than 15 respondents 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 0.0 7

All States 1.8 13.5 48.0 28.1 8.7 392

	Significantly strengthened (percent)	Strengthened (percent)	Neither strengthened nor weakened (percent)	Weakened (percent)	Significantly weakend (percent)	Number of respondents
Alabama	0.0	25.0	50.0	25.0	0.0	4
Arkansas	0.0	0.0	50.0	50.0	0.0	8
California	0.0	50.0	50.0	0.0	0.0	2
Colorado	0	0	0	0	0	0
Florida	11.1	44.4	22.2	22.2	0.0	9
Georgia	12.5	25.0	25.0	25.0	12.5	8
Iowa	0.0	14.3	38.1	38.1	9.5	21
Idaho	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	1
Illinois	3.2	6.5	61.3	25.8	3.2	31
Indiana	0.0	17.6	35.3	29.4	17.6	17
Kansas	0.0	0.0	33.3	33.3	33.3	6
Kentucky	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	1
Louisiana	0.0	21.4	64.3	7.1	7.1	14
Maryland	33.3	0.0	66.7	0.0	0.0	3
Michigan	0.0	21.4	42.9	21.4	14.3	14
Minnesota	0.0	8.5	46.8	27.7	17.0	47
Missouri	8.7	21.7	34.8	30.4	4.3	23
Mississippi	20.0	0.0	80.0	0.0	0.0	5
Montana	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	3
North Carolina	0.0	0.0	71.4	28.6	0.0	7
North Dakota	0.0	5.0	45.0	35.0	15.0	20
Nebraska	0.0	13.9	47.2	38.9	0.0	36
New Mexico	0	0	0	0	0	0
New York	0.0	0.0	16.7	33.3	50.0	6
Ohio	0.0	14.3	42.9	42.9	0.0	7
Oklahoma	0.0	0.0	50.0	0.0	50.0	2
Oregon	0.0	33.3	33.3	33.3	0.0	3
Pennsylvania	0.0	0.0	62.5	37.5	0.0	8
South Carolina	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	2
South Dakota	0.0	16.0	32.0	32.0	20.0	25
Tennessee	0.0	14.3	42.9	42.9	0.0	7
Texas	0.0	0.0	83.3	16.7	0.0	6
Utah	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	1
Virginia	0.0	40.0	40.0	20.0	0.0	5
Washington	0.0	0.0	66.7	33.3	0.0	3
Wisconsin	0.0	7.1	64.3	25.0	3.6	28
West Virginia	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	2
States with fewer than 15 respondents	0.0	28.6	71.4	0.0	0.0	7
All States	1.8	13.5	48.0	28.1	8.7	392