Total Conservation Programs in Chouteau County, Montana, 2022
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 221
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in Chouteau County, Montana totaled $1,976,000 in in 2022.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lazy Yb Land & Cattle | Big Sandy, MT 59520 | $67,952 |
| 2 | Bessette Ranch Co | Loma, MT 59460 | $47,100 |
| 3 | N Hanging 5 Ranch | Fort Benton, MT 59442 | $44,206 |
| 4 | Double P Land LLC | Great Falls, MT 59404 | $44,002 |
| 5 | Katco Farms Inc | Big Sandy, MT 59520 | $40,992 |
| 6 | G & M Knudson Family Limited Partnership | Great Falls, MT 59404 | $39,936 |
| 7 | Ralph R Seibel | Fort Benton, MT 59442 | $39,157 |
| 8 | R & R Bronec Grain & Cattle | Carter, MT 59420 | $37,532 |
| 9 | Ryan M Handley | Clinton, MT 59825 | $35,221 |
| 10 | Gregory W And Annette R Abell Tuw | Novato, CA 94947 | $34,270 |
| 11 | Abn Ranch Inc | Fort Benton, MT 59442 | $33,812 |
| 12 | , | $31,731 | |
| 13 | Robert E Spevacek | Geraldine, MT 59446 | $31,211 |
| 14 | William E Spevacek | Geraldine, MT 59446 | $28,370 |
| 15 | Dept Of Natural Resources & Conservation Trust Lan | Helena, MT 59620 | $28,185 |
| 16 | Patricia S Bueling - Patricia S Bueling Living Tru | Great Falls, MT 59405 | $26,715 |
| 17 | Tee Bar Lazy Five Inc | Great Falls, MT 59405 | $26,031 |
| 18 | Todd R Salisbury | Carter, MT 59420 | $25,961 |
| 19 | , | $24,688 | |
| 20 | Double M Inc | Shelby, MT 59474 | $23,934 |
* 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 >>
Increasing crop reference prices would hurt young farmers
Do billionaires get farm subsidies?
Crop insurance pays billions in weather-related losses linked to the climate crisis
Crop insurance costs soar over time, reaching a record high in 2022
As the climate emergency heats up the Southwest, crop insurance payouts for heat surge
In the intensifying climate crisis, a hotter Southwest spurs rising heat-related crop insurance costs
