Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Clay County, Tennessee, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 60
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in Clay County, Tennessee totaled $656,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
21 | Donald L Davis | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $13,200 |
22 | Stacy Davis | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $12,568 |
23 | Eulen Cherry | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $12,263 |
24 | William R Grace | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $11,734 |
25 | Rickey T Melton | Celina, TN 38551 | $10,253 |
26 | Kenneth Birdwell | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $9,263 |
27 | Ronald Doris Purcell | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $9,226 |
28 | Joe Stephens | Celina, TN 38551 | $8,914 |
29 | George Melton | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $8,175 |
30 | Ralph Spear | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $7,300 |
31 | Clyde A Lee | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $6,881 |
32 | Cordell Mclerran | Celina, TN 38551 | $6,769 |
33 | Dennis Purcell | Red Boiling Springs, TN 37150 | $6,402 |
34 | Garnett Cherry | Whitleyville, TN 38588 | $6,284 |
35 | Jerry Haynes | Celina, TN 38551 | $5,801 |
36 | Harris Radford | Celina, TN 38551 | $5,384 |
37 | Winston Anderson | Greenfield, IN 46140 | $4,500 |
38 | Gray Brothers Farms | Celina, TN 38551 | $4,500 |
39 | James C Brown | Cookeville, TN 38506 | $4,300 |
40 | Willas Short | Moss, TN 38575 | $3,375 |
* 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.”