Farm Subsidy information
San Bernardino County, California
Total Subsidies in San Bernardino County, California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 729
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in San Bernardino County, California totaled $82,358,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | L & M Dairy | Ontario, CA 91762 | $359,421 |
42 | Steve Rudy | San Dimas, CA 91773 | $351,563 |
43 | Valley Sod Farms | Las Vegas, NV 89118 | $348,952 |
44 | Bert Jim Degroot | Long Beach, CA 90815 | $348,532 |
45 | West-star North Dairy | Buttonwillow, CA 93206 | $344,958 |
46 | Jaques & Son Dairy | Hanford, CA 93230 | $334,568 |
47 | David Thornton | Alta Loma, CA 91737 | $332,665 |
48 | Pauline M Thornton | Alta Loma, CA 91737 | $332,665 |
49 | De Hoog Family Trust | Ontario, CA 91762 | $318,390 |
50 | Nyenhuis Dairy | Chino, CA 91710 | $311,771 |
51 | , | $302,260 | |
52 | William Koot Dairy | Winchester, CA 92596 | $302,129 |
53 | Martin Verhoeven Dairy | Chino, CA 91710 | $293,239 |
54 | Sun Valley Jersey Dairy Inc | San Angelo, TX 76905 | $293,237 |
55 | Gubler Orchids, Inc | Landers, CA 92285 | $292,711 |
56 | Art Venegas Dairy | Ontario, CA 91762 | $292,661 |
57 | Harter Farms | Needles, CA 92363 | $291,400 |
58 | De Vries Dairy | Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 | $290,374 |
59 | Cleveland Farms Inc | Chino, CA 91708 | $288,816 |
60 | Martin Vander Laan Dairy | Ontario, CA 91761 | $285,729 |
* 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.”