| Rank |
District |
Canola Subsidies**
2011 | Pct of
Total | Running
Percentage |
| 1 | At-large District of North Dakota (Rep. Kevin Cramer) | $3,356,721 | 7.7% | 7.7% |
| 2 | 7th District of Minnesota (Rep. Collin C.Peterson) | $294,761 | 0.7% | 8.4% |
| 3 | At-large District of Montana (Rep. Steve Daines) | $73,915 | 0.2% | 8.6% |
| 4 | 1st District of Idaho (Rep. Raśl R.Labrador) | $47,097 | 0.1% | 8.7% |
| 5 | 2nd District of Oregon (Rep. Greg Walden) | $22,157 | 0.1% | 8.7% |
| 6 | At-large District of South Dakota (Rep. Kristi L.Noem) | $8,550 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 7 | 5th District of Washington (Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers) | $7,387 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 8 | 2nd District of Idaho (Rep. Michael K.Simpson) | $6,922 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 9 | 8th District of Minnesota (Rep. Richard M.Nolan) | $4,024 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 10 | 4th District of Washington (Rep. Doc Hastings) | $2,633 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 11 | 6th District of South Carolina (Rep. James E.Clyburn) | $2,548 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 12 | 2nd District of Alabama (Rep. Martha Roby) | $2,008 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 13 | 51st District of California (Rep. Juan Vargas) | $1,323 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 14 | 2nd District of Georgia (Rep. Sanford D.Bishop) | $1,076 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 15 | 2nd District of Maine (Rep. Michael H.Michaud) | $1,062 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 16 | 9th District of Georgia (Rep. Doug Collins) | $888 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 17 | 4th District of Colorado (Rep. Cory Gardner) | $543 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 18 | 12th District of Georgia (Rep. John Barrow) | $513 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 19 | 7th District of South Carolina (Rep. Tom Rice) | $508 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 20 | 3rd District of Washington (Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler) | $463 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 21 | 1st District of Kentucky (Rep. Ed Whitfield) | $449 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 22 | 9th District of Pennsylvania (Rep. Bill Shuster) | $357 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 23 | 3rd District of Colorado (Rep. Scott R.Tipton) | $343 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 24 | 1st District of Kansas (Rep. Tim Huelskamp) | $332 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 25 | 7th District of Wisconsin (Rep. Sean P.Duffy) | $327 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 26 | 1st District of Michigan (Rep. Dan Benishek) | $249 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 27 | 2nd District of South Carolina (Rep. Joe Wilson) | $235 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 28 | 2nd District of Michigan (Rep. Bill Huizenga) | $159 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 29 | 3rd District of Arizona (Rep. Raśl M.Grijalva) | $110 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 30 | 3rd District of California (Rep. John Garamendi) | $109 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 31 | 4th District of Arizona (Rep. Paul A.Gosar) | $107 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 32 | 3rd District of South Carolina (Rep. Jeff Duncan) | $67 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 33 | 4th District of Kansas (Rep. Mike Pompeo) | $56 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 34 | 24th District of New York (Rep. Daniel B.Maffei) | $55 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 35 | 8th District of Washington (Rep. David G.Reichert) | $48 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 36 | At-large District of Wyoming (Rep. Cynthia M.Lummis) | $43 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 37 | 15th District of Illinois (Rep. John Shimkus) | $34 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 38 | 1st District of Utah (Rep. Rob Bishop) | $30 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 39 | 2nd District of Oklahoma (Rep. Markwayne Mullin) | $21 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 40 | 9th District of Ohio (Rep. Marcy Kaptur) | $19 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 41 | 3rd District of Michigan (Rep. Justin Amash) | $12 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 42 | 8th District of Georgia (Rep. Austin Scott) | $11 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 43 | 6th District of Minnesota (Rep. Michele Bachmann) | $10 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 44 | 3rd District of Nebraska (Rep. Adrian Smith) | $8 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 45 | 8th District of Indiana (Rep. Larry Bucshon) | $8 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 46 | 3rd District of Georgia (Rep. Lynn A.Westmoreland) | $7 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 47 | 2nd District of Kentucky (Rep. Brett Guthrie) | $7 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 48 | 4th District of Indiana (Rep. Todd Rokita) | $5 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 49 | 14th District of Illinois (Rep. Randy Hultgren) | $5 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
| 50 | 2nd District of Minnesota (Rep. John Kline) | $4 | 0.0% | 8.8% |
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 2011and 2012 are 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 or 2012 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.
