Farm Subsidy information
Chautauqua County, Kansas
Total Subsidies in Chautauqua County, Kansas, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 847
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Chautauqua County, Kansas totaled $28,666,000 in from 1995-2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2021 |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Sedan Floral, Inc | Sedan, KS 67361 | $752,450 |
2 | Todd Massey | Cedar Vale, KS 67024 | $628,420 |
3 | Steve Osburn | Elk City, KS 67344 | $605,012 |
4 | Double Tree Cattle Co LLC | Havana, KS 67347 | $568,163 |
5 | Hillcrest Farms Of Kansas Inc | Havana, KS 67347 | $493,941 |
6 | Beason Farm | Elk City, KS 67344 | $491,378 |
7 | Edwin E Bowman | Sedan, KS 67361 | $479,853 |
8 | Joe H Massey | Cedar Vale, KS 67024 | $462,762 |
9 | Floyd W Montgomery | Cedar Vale, KS 67024 | $445,317 |
10 | Paul J Fulsom Trust | Cedar Vale, KS 67024 | $388,290 |
11 | Jacot Ranches Inc | Moline, KS 67353 | $364,928 |
12 | Rolan Leniton | Grenola, KS 67346 | $331,413 |
13 | Djk Ranch Lp | Grenola, KS 67346 | $321,005 |
14 | Steven V Walker | Moline, KS 67353 | $318,299 |
15 | Dave Todd | Havana, KS 67347 | $289,703 |
16 | Mark Alan Mcdaniel | Caney, KS 67333 | $271,915 |
17 | Elton Bowman | Sedan, KS 67361 | $262,907 |
18 | Michael G Young | Cedar Vale, KS 67024 | $247,352 |
19 | Steve - Stephen E & Jane E Osburn Rev Osburn | Elk City, KS 67344 | $205,768 |
20 | Kempton Ranch LLC | Grenola, KS 67346 | $204,890 |
* 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 >>