Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Somerset County, Maryland, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 93
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in Somerset County, Maryland totaled $549,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | Randolph George | Birmingham, AL 35223 | $3,744 |
42 | James N Ring Jr | Westover, MD 21871 | $3,606 |
43 | Aaron Lessig | Princess Anne, MD 21853 | $3,359 |
44 | Ring Farms | Westover, MD 21871 | $3,348 |
45 | Larry Beauchamp | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $3,271 |
46 | J Lowell Stoltzfus Sr | Westover, MD 21871 | $3,188 |
47 | Michael Dryden Delete | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $3,130 |
48 | Edward Wilgus | Salisbury, MD 21801 | $3,037 |
49 | Arthur Hugh Long | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,718 |
50 | Richard Douglas Reynolds Jr | Princess Anne, MD 21853 | $2,679 |
51 | Howard Ross | Princess Anne, MD 21853 | $2,651 |
52 | Richard Long | Perry Hall, MD 21128 | $2,568 |
53 | Richard Keenan | Westover, MD 21871 | $2,417 |
54 | W Walter Beauchamp | Princess Anne, MD 21853 | $2,403 |
55 | Rural Integrity Land LLC | Stockton, MD 21864 | $2,395 |
56 | W & W King Farms | Westover, MD 21871 | $2,367 |
57 | Howard Overholt | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,250 |
58 | Walter Lee West Jr | Princess Anne, MD 21853 | $2,118 |
59 | William L Rice Jr | Pocomoke City, MD 21851 | $2,091 |
60 | John Donohue | Snow Hill, MD 21863 | $2,000 |
* 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.”