Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Mississippi County, Missouri, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 38
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in Mississippi County, Missouri totaled $175,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Orin Andrew Ambrose Iv | East Prairie, MO 63845 | $32,154 |
| 2 | Stallings Brothers | Charleston, MO 63834 | $24,409 |
| 3 | Dicky G Hanor Living Trust | Charleston, MO 63834 | $21,427 |
| 4 | R J S Burke Partnership | Charleston, MO 63834 | $11,680 |
| 5 | Hutcheson Bros LLC | East Prairie, MO 63845 | $7,427 |
| 6 | Abc Farms Inc | East Prairie, MO 63845 | $7,174 |
| 7 | Corse-goodin Company L L P | Charleston, MO 63834 | $7,069 |
| 8 | Burke Bros & Co Inc | Charleston, MO 63834 | $6,290 |
| 9 | Nathaniel Rushing Ault | Charleston, MO 63834 | $5,498 |
| 10 | Jbs Farms Inc | Charleston, MO 63834 | $4,689 |
| 11 | Brad Finley Hequembourg | Charleston, MO 63834 | $4,563 |
| 12 | Eleanor Susan Hequembourg | Charleston, MO 63834 | $4,442 |
| 13 | Nellie K Stallings Revocable Inte | Charleston, MO 63834 | $4,348 |
| 14 | Ronald E Rolwing Liv Tr-ronald And Jeanne Rolwing | Cedar Hill, MO 63016 | $4,015 |
| 15 | Bryant Dorena Farms | East Prairie, MO 63845 | $3,579 |
| 16 | B And J Farms | Charleston, MO 63834 | $3,151 |
| 17 | Wayne A Corse Revocable Living Trust | Charleston, MO 63834 | $2,796 |
| 18 | C And D Glenn Farms | Charleston, MO 63834 | $2,479 |
| 19 | Edna Heath | Sikeston, MO 63801 | $2,078 |
| 20 | Glen Ault Jr | Charleston, MO 63834 | $1,564 |
* 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