Conservation Reserve Program in Rush County, Kansas, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 514
Recipients of Conservation Reserve Program from farms in Rush County, Kansas totaled $1,549,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Conservation Reserve Program 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Doyle Lippert Rev Inter Vivos Trust | Bison, KS 67520 | $41,028 |
| 2 | Lamer Farms Inc | Scottsdale, AZ 85258 | $40,479 |
| 3 | D & V Brack Family Limited Partnership | Bullhead City, AZ 86429 | $39,547 |
| 4 | Edwin H Mauler Rev Trust | Great Bend, KS 67530 | $37,921 |
| 5 | Geoffrey Tammen | Albert, KS 67511 | $36,558 |
| 6 | Dechant Farms LLC | La Crosse, KS 67548 | $35,101 |
| 7 | Schwindt Farms Inc | Timken, KS 67575 | $26,436 |
| 8 | Norbert W Urban | La Crosse, KS 67548 | $24,434 |
| 9 | Kay Lamer | Arlington, MA 02476 | $22,708 |
| 10 | Dennis Gottschalk | La Crosse, KS 67548 | $22,414 |
| 11 | Peter Mark Derr | Lincoln, NE 68516 | $21,925 |
| 12 | Seltmann Land LLC | Fairfield, CA 94534 | $21,361 |
| 13 | Pam Kitch | Great Bend, KS 67530 | $20,629 |
| 14 | Norman Legleiter | La Crosse, KS 67548 | $17,109 |
| 15 | John R Elmore III | Lawrence, KS 66047 | $16,662 |
| 16 | C W Lamer III Revocable Trust | Scottsdale, AZ 85258 | $16,526 |
| 17 | G & D Phillips, LLC | Lewis, KS 67552 | $16,014 |
| 18 | Stull Ag Operations Inc | Mc Cracken, KS 67556 | $15,400 |
| 19 | Rueben Urban Living Trust | Bison, KS 67520 | $15,382 |
| 20 | Legleiter Living Trust | Hays, KS 67601 | $14,252 |
* 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