Environmental Quality Incentives Program in 6th District of Kenucky (Rep. Andy Barr), 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 96
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in 6th District of Kenucky (Rep. Andy Barr) totaled $509,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | Mary N Crump | Winchester, KY 40391 | $3,723 |
42 | Dennie Hawkins | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,635 |
43 | Glenn Salyer | Stanton, KY 40380 | $3,509 |
44 | Mitchell Potter | Winchester, KY 40391 | $3,500 |
45 | Doyle King | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,339 |
46 | Loren N Williams | Pikeville, KY 41501 | $3,252 |
47 | James Berkley Mark | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,239 |
48 | Ford A Patterson | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,180 |
49 | Carl Abney | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,053 |
50 | John D Judy | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $3,050 |
51 | A B Conkwright | Lexington, KY 40517 | $2,938 |
52 | Sidney Tipton | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $2,832 |
53 | Joe Myers | Harrodsburg, KY 40330 | $2,782 |
54 | James Clifton Pasley | Winchester, KY 40391 | $2,755 |
55 | O H Caudill Jr | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $2,674 |
56 | David Neal | Stanton, KY 40380 | $2,669 |
57 | Snowden Duty Farm | Winchester, KY 40391 | $2,593 |
58 | Ronald Frasure | Winchester, KY 40391 | $2,429 |
59 | David Rogers | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $2,400 |
60 | Thomas G Tipton | Mount Sterling, KY 40353 | $2,396 |
* 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.”