- Trump Budget Eliminates Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Leaving Fate of Lakes in Hands of U.S. Congress
- Great Lakes Advocates in D.C. to Urge Congress to Keep Restoration Efforts on Track
- Coalition: Trump Administration Proposed Cuts to Great Lakes Programs, EPA Unacceptable
- Press Briefing: Trump Administration Proposed Cuts, Rollbacks—Implications for Great Lakes
- Action Alert: Urge Senators to Sign On to Protect the Great Lakes
Ohio Poll May 2015
The survey of 805 general election voters was conducted by Fallon Research of Ohio, from questions written by Belden Russonello Strategists LLC in Washington, DC. Interviews were conducted by telephone from May 13 to May 16, 2015; margin of sampling error for the entire survey is plus or minus 3.45 percentage points. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
The Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection agency, or, EPA, as it is known, to control water pollution. Congress is considering whether the Clean Water Act should apply to wetlands and small streams. Do you agree more that…(rotated)…we should NOT apply the Clean Water Act to wetlands and small streams because it will hurt Ohio’s farmers, businesses and individuals who will be forced to comply with unnecessary regulation…or…we SHOULD apply the Clean Water Act to wetlands and streams, to protect our health and important habitats from dangerous pollution?
36.1% Should not apply
54.2% Should apply
9.7% Unsure/no answer
Over the last six years, the U.S. federal government has spent over $300 million dollars a year to improve the condition of the Great Lakes by cleaning up toxic waste and bacteria, reducing run- off pollution from cities and farms, and protecting and rebuilding wetlands. In your opinion, should the federal government continue or reduce the funding for Great Lakes clean-up? Follow-up, if continue or reduce: Do you feel strongly or not-so-strongly about this?
60% Strongly continue
18.4% Not-so-strongly continue
5.5% Not-so-strongly reduce
8.8% Strongly reduce
7.3% Unsure/no answer
Thinking about ways federal tax dollars have been spent in Ohio to improve the health of the Great Lakes, including Lake Erie…
Do you think that cleaning up toxic contamination such as mercury from the mouth of the Ashtabula River, which has made the area safe for fishing and boating again has been an excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor use of federal tax dollars?
1% Very poor
12.5% Unsure/no answer
Do you think that planting native trees and shrubs along a river flowing into Lake Erie, which prevents about two million gallons of storm water from flooding nearby communities each year, has been an excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor use of federal tax dollars?
1.9% Very poor
12.4% Unsure/no answer
The State of Ohio is considering new, stronger regulations to prevent farm run-off pollution that ends up in the state’s rivers, streams, and Lake Erie. Do you support or oppose stronger state regulations to prevent run-off pollution from farms? Follow-up, if support or oppose: Do you feel strongly or not-so-strongly about this?
54.9% Strongly support
18% Not-so-strongly support
9.3% Not-so-strongly oppose
9.4% Strongly oppose
8.3% Unsure/no answer
Should the new, state standards to prevent pollution from farm run-off be voluntary for farmers or should they be mandatory, with all farmers required to meet the standards? Follow-up, if voluntary or mandatory: Do you feel strongly or not-so-strongly about this?
20.5% Strongly voluntary
9.4% Not-so-strongly voluntary
14.4% Not-so-strongly mandatory
49.3% Strongly mandatory
6.3% Unsure/no answer