Environmental Quality Incentives Program in the United States, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 115,498
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in the United States totaled $944,006,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian C | Scottsdale, AZ 85250 | $1,426,235 |
| 2 | Cherokee Nation | Tahlequah, OK 74465 | $731,495 |
| 3 | Penobscot Nation | Old Town, ME 04468 | $669,601 |
| 4 | White Mountain Apache Tribe | Whiteriver, AZ 85941 | $623,190 |
| 5 | Jicarilla Apache Tribe | Dulce, NM 87528 | $570,346 |
| 6 | Fort Mojave Tribe | Mohave Valley, AZ 86446 | $498,087 |
| 7 | Ganado Farm Board | Ganado, AZ 86505 | $466,205 |
| 8 | W T Waggoner Est Trust | Vernon, TX 76385 | $435,945 |
| 9 | Northern Cheyenne Tribe | Lame Deer, MT 59043 | $430,622 |
| 10 | Chippewa Cree Tribe | Box Elder, MT 59521 | $429,582 |
| 11 | Dry Fork Farms Tribal Corporation | Box Elder, MT 59521 | $425,479 |
| 12 | Schiff Partnership | Harrington, DE 19952 | $421,267 |
| 13 | Confederated Tribes Of The Colvil | Nespelem, WA 99155 | $391,693 |
| 14 | Riverview Farms Inc | Orleans, IN 47452 | $391,130 |
| 15 | Tohono O'odham Farming Authority | Eloy, AZ 85131 | $379,924 |
| 16 | Premier Citrus LLC | Wilson, AR 72395 | $367,500 |
| 17 | Hawkeye Ditch Company | Fruita, CO 81521 | $337,127 |
| 18 | Clean Start Propagators LLC | Tulelake, CA 96134 | $316,777 |
| 19 | Franklin Farms Inc | North Franklin, CT 06254 | $309,363 |
| 20 | North Snake Ground Water District | Jerome, ID 83338 | $303,996 |
* 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