| Rank |
County |
Total USDA - Subsidies
2011 | Pct of
Total | Running
Percentage |
| 1 | Whitman County, Washington | $50,638,568 | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| 2 | Cass County, North Dakota | $50,340,507 | 0.3% | 0.7% |
| 3 | Richland County, North Dakota | $49,516,807 | 0.3% | 1.0% |
| 4 | Gaines County, Texas | $49,324,988 | 0.3% | 1.3% |
| 5 | Cavalier County, North Dakota | $49,097,584 | 0.3% | 1.6% |
| 6 | Brown County, South Dakota | $47,874,205 | 0.3% | 2.0% |
| 7 | Chouteau County, Montana | $44,724,403 | 0.3% | 2.2% |
| 8 | Fresno County, California | $41,255,860 | 0.3% | 2.5% |
| 9 | Stutsman County, North Dakota | $40,383,191 | 0.3% | 2.8% |
| 10 | Barnes County, North Dakota | $40,141,377 | 0.3% | 3.1% |
| 11 | Hale County, Texas | $37,941,723 | 0.2% | 3.3% |
| 12 | Dawson County, Texas | $36,462,943 | 0.2% | 3.5% |
| 13 | Spink County, South Dakota | $36,449,660 | 0.2% | 3.8% |
| 14 | Lincoln County, Washington | $35,581,614 | 0.2% | 4.0% |
| 15 | Marshall County, Minnesota | $35,466,503 | 0.2% | 4.3% |
| 16 | Kern County, California | $33,578,135 | 0.2% | 4.5% |
| 17 | Walsh County, North Dakota | $33,269,777 | 0.2% | 4.7% |
| 18 | Kit Carson County, Colorado | $33,101,206 | 0.2% | 4.9% |
| 19 | Terry County, Texas | $32,916,626 | 0.2% | 5.1% |
| 20 | Ramsey County, North Dakota | $32,417,083 | 0.2% | 5.3% |
| 21 | LaMoure County, North Dakota | $32,004,003 | 0.2% | 5.5% |
| 22 | Parmer County, Texas | $31,764,324 | 0.2% | 5.8% |
| 23 | Grand Forks County, North Dakota | $31,721,365 | 0.2% | 6.0% |
| 24 | Bottineau County, North Dakota | $31,439,800 | 0.2% | 6.2% |
| 25 | Yuma County, Colorado | $30,777,470 | 0.2% | 6.4% |
| 26 | Dickey County, North Dakota | $30,499,193 | 0.2% | 6.6% |
| 27 | Deaf Smith County, Texas | $30,308,259 | 0.2% | 6.8% |
| 28 | Baca County, Colorado | $30,264,914 | 0.2% | 7.0% |
| 29 | Floyd County, Texas | $30,239,546 | 0.2% | 7.2% |
| 30 | Lynn County, Texas | $30,088,808 | 0.2% | 7.4% |
| 31 | Swisher County, Texas | $29,951,538 | 0.2% | 7.6% |
| 32 | Hockley County, Texas | $29,808,021 | 0.2% | 7.8% |
| 33 | Ward County, North Dakota | $29,356,343 | 0.2% | 8.0% |
| 34 | Lamb County, Texas | $29,238,127 | 0.2% | 8.2% |
| 35 | Tulare County, California | $28,871,766 | 0.2% | 8.3% |
| 36 | Hill County, Montana | $28,691,657 | 0.2% | 8.5% |
| 37 | Iroquois County, Illinois | $28,661,518 | 0.2% | 8.7% |
| 38 | Pembina County, North Dakota | $28,412,141 | 0.2% | 8.9% |
| 39 | Lubbock County, Texas | $28,254,147 | 0.2% | 9.1% |
| 40 | Wharton County, Texas | $28,156,639 | 0.2% | 9.3% |
| 41 | Bolivar County, Mississippi | $27,338,346 | 0.2% | 9.5% |
| 42 | Traill County, North Dakota | $26,324,873 | 0.2% | 9.6% |
| 43 | Renville County, Minnesota | $26,103,728 | 0.2% | 9.8% |
| 44 | Sumner County, Kansas | $26,088,439 | 0.2% | 10.0% |
| 45 | Kossuth County, Iowa | $26,017,005 | 0.2% | 10.2% |
| 46 | Thomas County, Kansas | $25,948,308 | 0.2% | 10.3% |
| 47 | Sargent County, North Dakota | $25,808,094 | 0.2% | 10.5% |
| 48 | Adams County, Washington | $25,701,081 | 0.2% | 10.7% |
| 49 | Stoddard County, Missouri | $25,681,464 | 0.2% | 10.8% |
| 50 | Livingston County, Illinois | $25,296,648 | 0.2% | 11.0% |
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from USDA data.
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.
