Total Conservation Programs in the United States, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 1,398,976
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in the United States totaled $53,097,000,000 in from 1995-2023.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 1995-2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dnrc Trust Land Management - Exem | Helena, MT 59620 | $31,584,478 |
| 2 | Sd Building Authority | Sioux Falls, SD 57117 | $31,109,782 |
| 3 | Ducks Unlimited | Bismarck, ND 58503 | $30,212,640 |
| 4 | Montana Board Of Investments - Se | Saint Paul, MN 55170 | $23,447,815 |
| 5 | Shoshone Bannock Tribe | Fort Hall, ID 83203 | $20,686,415 |
| 6 | State Of Wash Dnr | Ellensburg, WA 98926 | $13,481,221 |
| 7 | Bureau Of Indian Affairs | Winnebago, NE 68071 | $10,877,893 |
| 8 | Farm Services Agency ** | Langdon, ND 58249 | $10,427,841 |
| 9 | Richland Prtsp | Salix, IA 51052 | $10,111,917 |
| 10 | Wheatlife Farms Gp | Colfax, WA 99111 | $9,598,370 |
| 11 | Hoke Ranches | Pendleton, OR 97801 | $8,123,827 |
| 12 | Andrews & Rowell | Prosser, WA 99350 | $7,500,503 |
| 13 | Nolin Farming Company | Pendleton, OR 97801 | $7,353,235 |
| 14 | Sisseton-wahpeton Oyate | Agency Village, SD 57262 | $6,977,142 |
| 15 | Broughton Land Co | Dayton, WA 99328 | $6,076,501 |
| 16 | Zmi Joint Venture | Washougal, WA 98671 | $5,652,374 |
| 17 | Alamo Frt Lines Inc Dba Alamo Ranch | Junction, TX 76849 | $5,606,249 |
| 18 | H M Ranch | Heppner, OR 97836 | $5,595,337 |
| 19 | Phillips Jv | Harrington, WA 99134 | $5,593,747 |
| 20 | Spratling Farms | Burley, ID 83318 | $5,395,837 |
* 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 >>
Increasing crop reference prices would hurt young farmers
Do billionaires get farm subsidies?
Crop insurance pays billions in weather-related losses linked to the climate crisis
Crop insurance costs soar over time, reaching a record high in 2022
As the climate emergency heats up the Southwest, crop insurance payouts for heat surge
In the intensifying climate crisis, a hotter Southwest spurs rising heat-related crop insurance costs
