Wetlands Reserve Program in the United States, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 2,176
Recipients of Wetlands Reserve Program from farms in the United States totaled $91,753,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Wetlands Reserve Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ducks Unlimited | Bismarck, ND 58503 | $29,874,953 |
| 2 | St John River Water Management Di | Palatka, FL 32178 | $3,115,994 |
| 3 | The Nature Conservancy | Minneapolis, MN 55415 | $2,279,481 |
| 4 | Florida Association Of Rc&d Counc | Orlando, FL 32822 | $2,024,303 |
| 5 | Central Area Rc&d Council | Conway, AR 72032 | $1,419,880 |
| 6 | Alliance Escrow & Title | Rigby, ID 83442 | $1,352,171 |
| 7 | Mississippi Fish And Wildlife Fou | Amory, MS 38821 | $1,181,174 |
| 8 | Chicago Title Ins Co | Ephrata, WA 98823 | $824,851 |
| 9 | W Brinkley Melvin | Fairfield, NC 27826 | $804,758 |
| 10 | Northland Properties Inc | Fremont, MI 49412 | $710,803 |
| 11 | Moore Law Firm Attorney | Barnwell, SC 29812 | $660,690 |
| 12 | Evans Farms Lp | Concordia, MO 64020 | $658,114 |
| 13 | Bernie M Kroiss | Colville, WA 99114 | $644,674 |
| 14 | State Of Michigan | Lansing, MI 48918 | $622,240 |
| 15 | Hardrives Construction Inc | Billings, MT 59101 | $591,559 |
| 16 | Iowa Department Of Natural Resources | Des Moines, IA 50319 | $566,117 |
| 17 | Woodbury County | Sioux City, IA 51109 | $545,559 |
| 18 | Garland Construction Company | Robbinsville, NC 28771 | $500,151 |
| 19 | Mo Department Of Conservation | Saint Charles, MO 63304 | $498,934 |
| 20 | Blue & Haeder Law Office | Huron, SD 57350 | $430,805 |
* USDA data are not "transparent" for many payments made to recipients through most cooperatives. Recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public. To see ownership information, click on the name, then click on the link that is titled Ownership Information.
** EWG has identified this recipient as a bank or lending institution that received the payment because the payment applicant had a loan requiring any subsidy payments go to the lender first. In 2019, the information provided to EWG by USDA began to include the entity that received the payment, rather than the person or entity that applied for it, which was previously provided. This move to shield subsidy recipients from disclosure enables USDA to further evade taxpayer accountability. Six percent of subsidy dollars went to banks, lending institutions, or the Farm Service Agency.”
Next >>
Federal crop insurance reform vital for incentivizing climate adaptation on farms
Farm Subsidies Ballooned Under Trump
Is Federal Crop Insurance Policy Leading to Another Dust Bowl?
Double Dipping:
The "Farm Crisis" Myth
Crying Wolf