435,979,356 searches since Nov. 29, 2004
Counties in United States Receiving canola subsidies**, 2011
| Rank |
County |
Canola Subsidies**
2011 | Pct of
Total | Running
Percentage |
| 1 | Cavalier County, North Dakota | $9,953,197 | 23.0% | 23.0% |
| 2 | Towner County, North Dakota | $3,535,194 | 8.2% | 31.2% |
| 3 | Bottineau County, North Dakota | $2,735,482 | 6.3% | 37.5% |
| 4 | Ward County, North Dakota | $2,647,068 | 6.1% | 43.7% |
| 5 | Ramsey County, North Dakota | $2,326,844 | 5.4% | 49.1% |
| 6 | Renville County, North Dakota | $1,916,732 | 4.4% | 53.5% |
| 7 | Rolette County, North Dakota | $1,911,859 | 4.4% | 57.9% |
| 8 | Hettinger County, North Dakota | $1,833,169 | 4.2% | 62.2% |
| 9 | McLean County, North Dakota | $1,743,210 | 4.0% | 66.2% |
| 10 | Mountrail County, North Dakota | $1,218,467 | 2.8% | 69.0% |
| 11 | Burke County, North Dakota | $1,192,845 | 2.8% | 71.8% |
| 12 | Pierce County, North Dakota | $1,182,188 | 2.7% | 74.5% |
| 13 | McHenry County, North Dakota | $1,077,554 | 2.5% | 77.0% |
| 14 | Roseau County, Minnesota | $933,421 | 2.2% | 79.2% |
| 15 | Benson County, North Dakota | $871,818 | 2.0% | 81.2% |
| 16 | Walsh County, North Dakota | $726,016 | 1.7% | 82.9% |
| 17 | Nelson County, North Dakota | $596,462 | 1.4% | 84.2% |
| 18 | Sheridan County, North Dakota | $405,058 | 0.9% | 85.2% |
| 19 | Adams County, North Dakota | $276,994 | 0.6% | 85.8% |
| 20 | Divide County, North Dakota | $264,862 | 0.6% | 86.4% |
| 21 | Burleigh County, North Dakota | $255,610 | 0.6% | 87.0% |
| 22 | Stark County, North Dakota | $248,186 | 0.6% | 87.6% |
| 23 | Mercer County, North Dakota | $232,824 | 0.5% | 88.1% |
| 24 | Glacier County, Montana | $225,018 | 0.5% | 88.7% |
| 25 | Williams County, North Dakota | $203,087 | 0.5% | 89.1% |
| 26 | Marshall County, Minnesota | $202,467 | 0.5% | 89.6% |
| 27 | Kittson County, Minnesota | $195,498 | 0.5% | 90.0% |
| 28 | Wells County, North Dakota | $194,215 | 0.4% | 90.5% |
| 29 | Slope County, North Dakota | $187,700 | 0.4% | 90.9% |
| 30 | McKenzie County, North Dakota | $175,979 | 0.4% | 91.3% |
| 31 | Pembina County, North Dakota | $160,097 | 0.4% | 91.7% |
| 32 | Grant County, Oklahoma | $140,817 | 0.3% | 92.0% |
| 33 | Foster County, North Dakota | $129,052 | 0.3% | 92.3% |
| 34 | Lake of the Woods County, Minnesota | $122,833 | 0.3% | 92.6% |
| 35 | Stutsman County, North Dakota | $115,583 | 0.3% | 92.9% |
| 36 | Cotton County, Oklahoma | $114,841 | 0.3% | 93.1% |
| 37 | Blaine County, Oklahoma | $113,145 | 0.3% | 93.4% |
| 38 | Kingfisher County, Oklahoma | $111,342 | 0.3% | 93.7% |
| 39 | Dunn County, North Dakota | $110,757 | 0.3% | 93.9% |
| 40 | Barber County, Kansas | $102,484 | 0.2% | 94.2% |
| 41 | Tillman County, Oklahoma | $99,029 | 0.2% | 94.4% |
| 42 | Dewey County, Oklahoma | $97,591 | 0.2% | 94.6% |
| 43 | Grant County, North Dakota | $95,233 | 0.2% | 94.8% |
| 44 | Idaho County, Idaho | $94,721 | 0.2% | 95.1% |
| 45 | Bowman County, North Dakota | $94,080 | 0.2% | 95.3% |
| 46 | Oliver County, North Dakota | $91,205 | 0.2% | 95.5% |
| 47 | Pondera County, Montana | $86,896 | 0.2% | 95.7% |
| 48 | Alfalfa County, Oklahoma | $82,890 | 0.2% | 95.9% |
| 49 | Morton County, North Dakota | $79,112 | 0.2% | 96.1% |
| 50 | Eddy County, North Dakota | $72,726 | 0.2% | 96.2% |
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from USDA data.
** Crop totals are an estimate. In the data received by EWG for 2009-2011, USDA does not differentiate Direct Payments or Counter-Cyclical Payments by crop as in previous years. EWG allocated the region's Direct Payments by crop for the 2009-2011 calendar year using the proportion of that crop's Direct Payments in 2008. Number of recipients receiving Direct Payments for that crop were not estimated. Due to the way Counter Cyclical Payments are made - EWG was not able to allocate Counter Cyclical Payments to crops. Also included in the crop totals are the crop insurance premiums as reported by the USDA Risk Management Agency for that crop. The crop insurance premium is the amount of money that is calculated by USDA to make the program actuarially sound. Crop insurance premium subsidies are available at the county, state and national level.
Note: The information on conservation spending for 2011 is incomplete due to missing data from USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service. In addition some payments made in 2010 were not assigned to recipients in the data received from NRCS. Those payments are also not included.
The information provided for the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) provides an inaccurate picture of how WRP payments are distributed. USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service uses title companies as intermediaries to finalize wetlands easements under the Wetlands Reserve Program. As a result, the data provided to us shows large sums of money going to these title companies. In reality, the payments are ultimately distributed to landowners participating in the WRP.
Unfortunately, NRCS has not provided the data to show where these farms and wetlands are located or which farmers or landowners are enrolling in the program, so EWG is unable to allocate these large sums of money to individuals beyond the title companies. Therefore, these companies skew the conservation rankings and payment concentration, which EWG cannot avoid unless and until NRCS makes available the additional farm attribution data. Therefore, we have not included WRP payments in the 2011 data update.
We have separated data on farm commodity, disaster and conservation payments in order to provide a more accurate picture of top recipients and concentration of payments among the three main categories of USDA programs.
Finally, EWG works hard to ensure the accuracy of the information it provides through its products and services, but obtains data for the Farm Subsidy Database from the U.S. Department of Agriculture pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, EWG cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information USDA provides or any analysis based thereon. If you find an error or discrepancy on the site, please contact your local USDA Farm Service Agency office to check its records before contacting EWG.
