Market Facilitation Program (MFP) in Columbia County, Washington, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 293
Recipients of Market Facilitation Program (MFP) from farms in Columbia County, Washington totaled $2,375,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Market Facilitation Program (MFP) 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broughton Land Co | Dayton, WA 99328 | $238,018 |
| 2 | Seney Land & Livestock Joint Venture | Dayton, WA 99328 | $125,255 |
| 3 | Double D Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $95,498 |
| 4 | Archer Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $80,443 |
| 5 | Penner Farms Joint Venture | Waitsburg, WA 99361 | $78,416 |
| 6 | Carlton Farms Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $67,734 |
| 7 | D & K Farming Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $65,072 |
| 8 | Randy James And Terri James Dba James Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $59,605 |
| 9 | Barker Enterprises Joint Venture | Dayton, WA 99328 | $55,729 |
| 10 | Lambert L & L Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $48,534 |
| 11 | Wilson Hollow Farms, LLC | Waitsburg, WA 99361 | $47,754 |
| 12 | Hg Etc LLC | Dayton, WA 99328 | $45,375 |
| 13 | Mead Ranch | Dayton, WA 99328 | $42,577 |
| 14 | Covello Cellars Inc | Walla Walla, WA 99362 | $38,052 |
| 15 | Thorn Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $35,334 |
| 16 | Ingram Farms Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $34,357 |
| 17 | Bo-j Farms LLC | Dayton, WA 99328 | $34,354 |
| 18 | Shoun Farms Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $33,924 |
| 19 | D & M Farming Inc | Dayton, WA 99328 | $33,743 |
| 20 | Tucannon Ag Partnership LLC | Starbuck, WA 99359 | $32,113 |
* 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