Commodity subsidies in the United States totaled $177.6 billion from 1995-2012.
Counties in United States Receiving Commodity Payments, 1995-2012
| Rank | County | Subtotal, Farming Subsidies 1995-2012 | Pct of Total | Running Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Colusa County, California | $706,715,035 | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| 2 | Fresno County, California | $641,486,620 | 0.4% | 0.8% |
| 3 | Poinsett County, Arkansas | $560,364,994 | 0.3% | 1.1% |
| 4 | Kern County, California | $522,052,466 | 0.3% | 1.4% |
| 5 | Wharton County, Texas | $518,283,904 | 0.3% | 1.7% |
| 6 | Gaines County, Texas | $496,817,586 | 0.3% | 1.9% |
| 7 | Bolivar County, Mississippi | $491,222,293 | 0.3% | 2.2% |
| 8 | Sutter County, California | $478,420,267 | 0.3% | 2.5% |
| 9 | Maricopa County, Arizona | $464,451,434 | 0.3% | 2.7% |
| 10 | McLean County, Illinois | $460,190,334 | 0.3% | 3.0% |
| 11 | Craighead County, Arkansas | $459,386,013 | 0.3% | 3.3% |
| 12 | Mississippi County, Arkansas | $454,796,767 | 0.3% | 3.5% |
| 13 | Hale County, Texas | $445,057,679 | 0.3% | 3.8% |
| 14 | Tulare County, California | $444,540,691 | 0.3% | 4.0% |
| 15 | Whitman County, Washington | $444,230,401 | 0.3% | 4.3% |
| 16 | Butte County, California | $442,581,223 | 0.2% | 4.5% |
| 17 | Arkansas County, Arkansas | $439,733,382 | 0.2% | 4.8% |
| 18 | Stoddard County, Missouri | $433,934,655 | 0.2% | 5.0% |
| 19 | Glenn County, California | $433,022,746 | 0.2% | 5.3% |
| 20 | Kings County, California | $422,827,620 | 0.2% | 5.5% |
| 21 | Pinal County, Arizona | $422,534,488 | 0.2% | 5.7% |
| 22 | Iroquois County, Illinois | $418,342,496 | 0.2% | 6.0% |
| 23 | Washington County, Mississippi | $416,759,231 | 0.2% | 6.2% |
| 24 | Kossuth County, Iowa | $404,534,541 | 0.2% | 6.4% |
| 25 | Cross County, Arkansas | $395,229,498 | 0.2% | 6.7% |
| 26 | Livingston County, Illinois | $394,058,671 | 0.2% | 6.9% |
| 27 | Champaign County, Illinois | $387,399,958 | 0.2% | 7.1% |
| 28 | La Salle County, Illinois | $382,659,038 | 0.2% | 7.3% |
| 29 | Sunflower County, Mississippi | $379,969,474 | 0.2% | 7.5% |
| 30 | Lonoke County, Arkansas | $372,152,954 | 0.2% | 7.7% |
| 31 | Clay County, Arkansas | $371,743,411 | 0.2% | 7.9% |
| 32 | New Madrid County, Missouri | $366,983,801 | 0.2% | 8.1% |
| 33 | Cass County, North Dakota | $363,894,531 | 0.2% | 8.4% |
| 34 | Jackson County, Arkansas | $354,899,729 | 0.2% | 8.6% |
| 35 | Acadia Parish, Louisiana | $353,213,211 | 0.2% | 8.8% |
| 36 | Coahoma County, Mississippi | $345,261,231 | 0.2% | 8.9% |
| 37 | Bureau County, Illinois | $335,396,057 | 0.2% | 9.1% |
| 38 | Morehouse Parish, Louisiana | $334,036,327 | 0.2% | 9.3% |
| 39 | Lawrence County, Arkansas | $331,044,381 | 0.2% | 9.5% |
| 40 | Phillips County, Arkansas | $330,089,884 | 0.2% | 9.7% |
| 41 | Merced County, California | $327,387,929 | 0.2% | 9.9% |
| 42 | Jefferson County, Arkansas | $325,199,452 | 0.2% | 10.1% |
| 43 | Desha County, Arkansas | $324,993,765 | 0.2% | 10.2% |
| 44 | Leflore County, Mississippi | $323,546,078 | 0.2% | 10.4% |
| 45 | Parmer County, Texas | $323,185,683 | 0.2% | 10.6% |
| 46 | Yuma County, Colorado | $321,798,233 | 0.2% | 10.8% |
| 47 | Dawson County, Texas | $321,419,420 | 0.2% | 11.0% |
| 48 | Sioux County, Iowa | $318,516,627 | 0.2% | 11.2% |
| 49 | Renville County, Minnesota | $318,282,959 | 0.2% | 11.3% |
| 50 | Lamb County, Texas | $317,586,804 | 0.2% | 11.5% |
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from USDA data.
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.
