435,969,566 searches since Nov. 29, 2004
Congressional Districts in Mitchell County, Texas Receiving sorghum subsidies**, 1995-2011
| Rank |
District |
Sorghum Subsidies**
1995-2011 | Pct of
Total | Running
Percentage |
| 1 | 13th District of Texas (Rep. Mac Thornberry) | $372,702,630 | 20.1% | 20.1% |
| 2 | 19th District of Texas (Rep. Randy Neugebauer) | $203,383,077 | 11.0% | 31.1% |
| 3 | 15th District of Texas (Rep. Ruben Hinojosa) | $154,632,237 | 8.3% | 39.4% |
| 4 | 14th District of Texas (Rep. Ron Paul) | $148,761,413 | 8.0% | 47.5% |
| 5 | 27th District of Texas (Rep. Blake Farenthold) | $120,049,831 | 6.5% | 53.9% |
| 6 | 31st District of Texas (Rep. John R. Carter) | $71,222,975 | 3.8% | 57.8% |
| 7 | 17th District of Texas (Rep. Bill Flores) | $52,394,933 | 2.8% | 60.6% |
| 8 | 4th District of Texas (Rep. Ralph M. Hall) | $48,162,347 | 2.6% | 63.2% |
| 9 | 11th District of Texas (Rep. K. Michael Conaway) | $48,000,855 | 2.6% | 65.8% |
| 10 | 28th District of Texas (Rep. Henry Cuellar) | $30,681,697 | 1.7% | 67.5% |
| 11 | 25th District of Texas (Rep. Lloyd Doggett) | $24,050,590 | 1.3% | 68.8% |
| 12 | 23rd District of Texas (Rep. Francisco Canseco) | $20,758,787 | 1.1% | 69.9% |
| 13 | 6th District of Texas (Rep. Joe Barton) | $16,381,401 | 0.9% | 70.8% |
| 14 | 10th District of Texas (Rep. Michael T. McCaul) | $14,439,816 | 0.8% | 71.5% |
| 15 | 22nd District of Texas (Rep. Pete Olson) | $11,986,455 | 0.6% | 72.2% |
| 16 | 26th District of Texas (Rep. Michael C. Burgess) | $6,257,675 | 0.3% | 72.5% |
| 17 | 2nd District of Texas (Rep. Ted Poe) | $5,966,030 | 0.3% | 72.8% |
| 18 | 21st District of Texas (Rep. Lamar Smith) | $4,113,814 | 0.2% | 73.1% |
| 19 | 5th District of Texas (Rep. Jeb Hensarling) | $3,117,142 | 0.2% | 73.2% |
| 20 | 30th District of Texas (Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson) | $1,380,386 | 0.1% | 73.3% |
| 21 | 3rd District of Texas (Rep. Sam Johnson) | $1,211,173 | 0.1% | 73.4% |
| 22 | 12th District of Texas (Rep. Kay Granger) | $859,935 | 0.0% | 73.4% |
| 23 | 9th District of Texas (Rep. Al Green) | $765,517 | 0.0% | 73.5% |
| 24 | 1st District of Texas (Rep. Louie Gohmert) | $747,533 | 0.0% | 73.5% |
| 25 | 20th District of Texas (Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez) | $679,109 | 0.0% | 73.5% |
| 26 | 24th District of Texas (Rep. Kenny Marchant) | $489,021 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 27 | 8th District of Texas (Rep. Kevin Brady) | $393,673 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 28 | 32nd District of Texas (Rep. Pete Sessions) | $383,623 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 29 | 7th District of Texas (Rep. John Abney Culberson) | $250,079 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 30 | 16th District of Texas (Rep. Silvestre Reyes) | $246,058 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 31 | 29th District of Texas (Rep. Gene Green) | $49,249 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
| 32 | 18th District of Texas (Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee) | $272 | 0.0% | 73.6% |
NOTE: Not all recipients were able to be placed into Congressional Districts
so the District total may not total 100%. Nationally 96% of all program monies were designated into a Congressional District
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.
