Direct Payment Program in California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 19,056
Recipients of Direct Payment Program from farms in California totaled $1,672,000,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Direct Payment Program 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | Sohnrey And Son Family Farm | Durham, CA 95938 | $1,473,872 |
62 | Ballengee Brothers | Shafter, CA 93263 | $1,472,680 |
63 | Rehman Family Farms | Sacramento, CA 95834 | $1,459,015 |
64 | Cjc Farms Joint Venture | Colusa, CA 95932 | $1,456,326 |
65 | Starkey Farms | Oroville, CA 95965 | $1,449,950 |
66 | Tres Picos | Redding, CA 96099 | $1,438,031 |
67 | Victoria Farms | Colusa, CA 95932 | $1,437,214 |
68 | Lincoln Ranch | Elk Grove, CA 95624 | $1,434,718 |
69 | Argo Family Farms | Princeton, CA 95970 | $1,413,285 |
70 | A & M Farms | Chico, CA 95928 | $1,410,571 |
71 | George Watte & Sons | Tulare, CA 93274 | $1,408,900 |
72 | Red River Farms | Blythe, CA 92225 | $1,401,512 |
73 | A-bar Ag Enterprises | Firebaugh, CA 93622 | $1,384,160 |
74 | B & D Bradshaw | Wheatland, CA 95692 | $1,378,341 |
75 | Teixeira And Sons | Los Banos, CA 93635 | $1,364,108 |
76 | Proctor Farms | Corcoran, CA 93212 | $1,348,654 |
77 | Melbay Farms | Yuba City, CA 95992 | $1,343,046 |
78 | Henning Rice Farms | Orland, CA 95963 | $1,333,362 |
79 | B & L Farms | Hanford, CA 93230 | $1,333,244 |
80 | Akin Ranch | Robbins, CA 95676 | $1,332,446 |
* 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.”