Miscellaneous Conservation Programs in King William County, Virginia, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 26
Recipients of Miscellaneous Conservation Programs from farms in King William County, Virginia totaled $27,832 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Miscellaneous Conservation Programs 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cohoke Farm LLC | West Point, VA 23181 | $3,628 |
| 2 | L A Lipscomb Jr | King William, VA 23086 | $3,198 |
| 3 | Wood Oaks Corporation | Manakin Sabot, VA 23103 | $2,609 |
| 4 | Hugh Barnes Townsend Jr | Manquin, VA 23106 | $2,332 |
| 5 | Everett Pickett Upshaw | West Point, VA 23181 | $1,725 |
| 6 | John M Kelley | King William, VA 23086 | $1,500 |
| 7 | Nan J Goldberg | Manquin, VA 23106 | $1,304 |
| 8 | Rickey Crabtree | Aylett, VA 23009 | $1,115 |
| 9 | Elis Olsson Estate C/o Crestar Ba | Richmond, VA 23261 | $1,100 |
| 10 | Beverly D Reed Jr | Aylett, VA 23009 | $1,080 |
| 11 | William G Gulasky | Hanover, VA 23069 | $1,063 |
| 12 | Franklin Parker III | Walkerton, VA 23177 | $940 |
| 13 | George H Guy Jr | West Point, VA 23181 | $821 |
| 14 | Richard L Green | Hanover, VA 23069 | $795 |
| 15 | W M Upshaw | West Point, VA 23181 | $781 |
| 16 | Ernest Glazebrook | West Point, VA 23181 | $777 |
| 17 | Thomas H Garrett | Richmond, VA 23229 | $727 |
| 18 | Roger E Abrams | Aylett, VA 23009 | $715 |
| 19 | Martha G Glazebrook | King William, VA 23086 | $576 |
| 20 | Edgar R Lafferty III | King William, VA 23086 | $260 |
* 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