Farm Subsidy information
Sweet Grass County, Montana
Total Subsidies in Sweet Grass County, Montana, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 60
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Sweet Grass County, Montana totaled $238,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kevin D Halverson | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $19,263 |
| 2 | Lc Cattle Company, LLC | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $18,747 |
| 3 | Tom Knoll | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $11,987 |
| 4 | Cole T Cumin | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $11,702 |
| 5 | Kenneth D Gilbert | Rapelje, MT 59067 | $11,051 |
| 6 | Ky Hanson | Shawmut, MT 59078 | $9,048 |
| 7 | G Kit Beley | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $6,618 |
| 8 | Brett Todd | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $5,753 |
| 9 | Cayuse Livestock Co | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $4,738 |
| 10 | Roger Dean Indreland | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $4,615 |
| 11 | William T Brownlee | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $4,287 |
| 12 | Herbert C Bue | Reed Point, MT 59069 | $4,208 |
| 13 | Stewart B Drange | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $4,020 |
| 14 | Philip L Schuman | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $3,766 |
| 15 | Kristopher Stene | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $3,640 |
| 16 | Jason D Schwers | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $3,533 |
| 17 | Greg H Langford | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $3,165 |
| 18 | The Holman Revocable Trust | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $3,065 |
| 19 | Lee Roy Goddard | Reed Point, MT 59069 | $3,043 |
| 20 | Shirley J Breck | Big Timber, MT 59011 | $2,789 |
* 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