Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) in 5th District of Washington (Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers), 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 1,222
Recipients of Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) from farms in 5th District of Washington (Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers) totaled $40,227,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broughton Land Co | Dayton, WA 99328 | $1,523,578 |
| 2 | Archer Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $551,129 |
| 3 | Penner Farms Joint Venture | Waitsburg, WA 99361 | $412,352 |
| 4 | Emtman Bros Farms Jv | Valleyford, WA 99036 | $411,385 |
| 5 | Klaveano Brothers Jv | Pomeroy, WA 99347 | $405,241 |
| 6 | Double D Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $399,416 |
| 7 | Mead Ranch | Dayton, WA 99328 | $367,378 |
| 8 | Pearl Farms Pomeroy | Pomeroy, WA 99347 | $332,562 |
| 9 | Pottratz & Tiegs Farms Joint Venture | Fairfield, WA 99012 | $308,036 |
| 10 | Hill View Farms Jv | Cheney, WA 99004 | $297,790 |
| 11 | Barker Enterprises Joint Venture | Dayton, WA 99328 | $291,042 |
| 12 | T & T Jv | Fairfield, WA 99012 | $287,756 |
| 13 | Randy James And Terri James Dba James Farms | Dayton, WA 99328 | $287,103 |
| 14 | Dale & Phyllis Heitstuman | Pomeroy, WA 99347 | $273,394 |
| 15 | Ken & Ida Clausen Jv | Rosalia, WA 99170 | $267,896 |
| 16 | Blachly & Sons | Pomeroy, WA 99347 | $261,688 |
| 17 | Bafus Bros Gp | Rosalia, WA 99170 | $250,379 |
| 18 | Ely Ranches | Waitsburg, WA 99361 | $238,176 |
| 19 | C & L Farms Ptn | Asotin, WA 99402 | $232,824 |
| 20 | William P & Terrilie K Cox Jv | Pomeroy, WA 99347 | $226,286 |
* 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