Loan Deficiency in Pima County, Arizona, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 41
Recipients of Loan Deficiency from farms in Pima County, Arizona totaled $3,630,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Loan Deficiency 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Post Farms | Marana, AZ 85653 | $985,886 |
| 2 | Ernest Bratton Etal Ptr Dba La Fa | Marana, AZ 85653 | $461,115 |
| 3 | Las Pilas Ranches A Ptns | Phoenix, AZ 85021 | $311,274 |
| 4 | Tohono O'odham Farming Authority | Eloy, AZ 85131 | $217,382 |
| 5 | Pacheco Farm Management & Consulting Co | Marana, AZ 85653 | $184,683 |
| 6 | Sonia Bratton | Marana, AZ 85653 | $176,077 |
| 7 | Gladden Farms Ptns | Marana, AZ 85653 | $174,865 |
| 8 | Tnt Farms | Marana, AZ 85653 | $162,794 |
| 9 | Double B Farms A Ptns | Marana, AZ 85653 | $159,490 |
| 10 | Clark Farms Jv | Tucson, AZ 85743 | $94,820 |
| 11 | Double D Farms Ptshp | Marana, AZ 85653 | $71,370 |
| 12 | Burruel & Burruel Farms Ptshp | Marana, AZ 85653 | $70,702 |
| 13 | Barnett Family Trust | Marana, AZ 85653 | $56,200 |
| 14 | Jason Charles Walker | Casa Grande, AZ 85194 | $53,544 |
| 15 | Bilron/chu Joint Venture | Marana, AZ 85653 | $53,151 |
| 16 | Bilron Farms | Marana, AZ 85653 | $49,767 |
| 17 | State Of Arizona | Phoenix, AZ 85009 | $36,225 |
| 18 | Fred Barnett Farms | Marana, AZ 85653 | $33,484 |
| 19 | John Walker | Casa Grande, AZ 85194 | $31,005 |
| 20 | Tze Shar Chu | Tucson, AZ 85745 | $29,705 |
* 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