437,156,342 searches since Nov. 29, 2004
Counties in United States Receiving safflower subsidies**, 1995-2012
| Rank |
County |
Safflower Subsidies**
1995-2012 | Pct of
Total | Running
Percentage |
| 1 | Yolo County, California | $2,749,562 | 10.6% | 10.6% |
| 2 | Kings County, California | $2,329,172 | 9.0% | 19.5% |
| 3 | Sutter County, California | $1,822,277 | 7.0% | 26.5% |
| 4 | Richland County, Montana | $1,216,757 | 4.7% | 31.2% |
| 5 | Pennington County, South Dakota | $1,201,310 | 4.6% | 35.8% |
| 6 | San Joaquin County, California | $1,198,867 | 4.6% | 40.4% |
| 7 | Colusa County, California | $1,011,204 | 3.9% | 44.3% |
| 8 | Sacramento County, California | $817,341 | 3.1% | 47.5% |
| 9 | McKenzie County, North Dakota | $811,542 | 3.1% | 50.6% |
| 10 | Fresno County, California | $633,281 | 2.4% | 53.0% |
| 11 | Solano County, California | $622,961 | 2.4% | 55.4% |
| 12 | Box Elder County, Utah | $609,741 | 2.3% | 57.8% |
| 13 | San Juan County, Utah | $603,552 | 2.3% | 60.1% |
| 14 | Roosevelt County, Montana | $560,219 | 2.2% | 62.3% |
| 15 | Williams County, North Dakota | $547,943 | 2.1% | 64.4% |
| 16 | Chouteau County, Montana | $538,333 | 2.1% | 66.4% |
| 17 | Stark County, North Dakota | $508,197 | 2.0% | 68.4% |
| 18 | Dawson County, Montana | $477,295 | 1.8% | 70.2% |
| 19 | Cache County, Utah | $427,066 | 1.6% | 71.9% |
| 20 | McCone County, Montana | $363,735 | 1.4% | 73.3% |
| 21 | Hettinger County, North Dakota | $355,627 | 1.4% | 74.6% |
| 22 | Bowman County, North Dakota | $341,841 | 1.3% | 75.9% |
| 23 | Meade County, South Dakota | $324,343 | 1.2% | 77.2% |
| 24 | Power County, Idaho | $319,936 | 1.2% | 78.4% |
| 25 | Golden Valley County, North Dakota | $313,209 | 1.2% | 79.6% |
| 26 | Fallon County, Montana | $297,281 | 1.1% | 80.8% |
| 27 | Haakon County, South Dakota | $278,431 | 1.1% | 81.8% |
| 28 | Big Horn County, Montana | $270,945 | 1.0% | 82.9% |
| 29 | Grant County, North Dakota | $270,777 | 1.0% | 83.9% |
| 30 | Adams County, North Dakota | $262,327 | 1.0% | 84.9% |
| 31 | Slope County, North Dakota | $233,910 | 0.9% | 85.8% |
| 32 | Divide County, North Dakota | $225,861 | 0.9% | 86.7% |
| 33 | Wibaux County, Montana | $212,462 | 0.8% | 87.5% |
| 34 | Sheridan County, Montana | $211,582 | 0.8% | 88.3% |
| 35 | Dunn County, North Dakota | $187,050 | 0.7% | 89.1% |
| 36 | Harding County, South Dakota | $184,011 | 0.7% | 89.8% |
| 37 | Kern County, California | $167,069 | 0.6% | 90.4% |
| 38 | Valley County, Montana | $161,518 | 0.6% | 91.0% |
| 39 | Yuma County, Arizona | $130,214 | 0.5% | 91.5% |
| 40 | Franklin County, Idaho | $122,115 | 0.5% | 92.0% |
| 41 | Jackson County, South Dakota | $112,678 | 0.4% | 92.4% |
| 42 | Perkins County, South Dakota | $112,361 | 0.4% | 92.9% |
| 43 | Tulare County, California | $105,993 | 0.4% | 93.3% |
| 44 | Oneida County, Idaho | $91,717 | 0.4% | 93.6% |
| 45 | Daniels County, Montana | $74,138 | 0.3% | 93.9% |
| 46 | Blaine County, Montana | $71,036 | 0.3% | 94.2% |
| 47 | Utah County, Utah | $68,337 | 0.3% | 94.4% |
| 48 | Carter County, Montana | $66,979 | 0.3% | 94.7% |
| 49 | Mountrail County, North Dakota | $66,400 | 0.3% | 95.0% |
| 50 | McLean County, North Dakota | $65,661 | 0.3% | 95.2% |
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 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.
