Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) in Amador County, California, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 60
Recipients of Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) from farms in Amador County, California totaled $397,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
21 | John Kirkpatrick & Sons | Jackson, CA 95642 | $6,118 |
22 | Vicini Family Investments Lp | Placerville, CA 95667 | $6,088 |
23 | Daniel Egan | Wilton, CA 95693 | $6,062 |
24 | Robert Garamendi | Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245 | $5,904 |
25 | Frank Busi Jr | Jackson, CA 95642 | $4,763 |
26 | John R Lopes | Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245 | $4,300 |
27 | F & J Oneto Ranch Lp | Sutter Creek, CA 95685 | $4,218 |
28 | Clinton Brownlie | Jackson, CA 95642 | $4,013 |
29 | Karlie N Yarbrough | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $3,803 |
30 | Elliott Joses | Mountain Ranch, CA 95246 | $3,642 |
31 | Villegas Family Trust Dated March 2001 | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $3,459 |
32 | Donald J Swett | Jackson, CA 95642 | $3,151 |
33 | Mattley Dell Orto | Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245 | $2,647 |
34 | John A Miles | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $2,637 |
35 | Donald Hutchison | Sloughhouse, CA 95683 | $2,387 |
36 | Paul Biehle | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $2,250 |
37 | Patrick J Littlefield | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $2,056 |
38 | Susan J. Kohler-anderson | Ione, CA 95640 | $1,926 |
39 | Daniel W Port | Ione, CA 95640 | $1,733 |
40 | Kenneth M Buscher | Bonanza, OR 97623 | $1,569 |
* 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.”