Total Commodity Programs in Butte County, California, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 500
Recipients of Total Commodity Programs from farms in Butte County, California totaled $6,875,000 in in 2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Commodity Programs 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | C F Koehnen & Sons Orchards | Glenn, CA 95943 | $387,603 |
| 2 | Pine Creek Ranch | Durham, CA 95938 | $267,191 |
| 3 | Farmers International Inc | Chico, CA 95973 | $253,556 |
| 4 | Dos Arboles Inc | Chico, CA 95973 | $250,000 |
| 5 | West Chico Properties Dba Hula Nut Company | Biggs, CA 95917 | $235,771 |
| 6 | Roger Jack Lapant | Durham, CA 95938 | $143,394 |
| 7 | Jbi LLC | Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 | $131,243 |
| 8 | Davit Management, LLC. | Yuba City, CA 95991 | $120,537 |
| 9 | James C Schroer | Chico, CA 95928 | $108,533 |
| 10 | Sohnrey And Son Family Farm | Durham, CA 95938 | $107,618 |
| 11 | Melbay Farms | Yuba City, CA 95992 | $100,814 |
| 12 | Caswell Farms | Durham, CA 95938 | $90,838 |
| 13 | Gorrill Land Company | Durham, CA 95938 | $90,641 |
| 14 | Robert Matthew Vanella | Chico, CA 95928 | $86,092 |
| 15 | Sohnrey Brothers Enterprises LLC | Oroville, CA 95965 | $77,908 |
| 16 | Darrel Parsley | Chico, CA 95973 | $75,624 |
| 17 | James Paiva Jr | Chico, CA 95973 | $69,722 |
| 18 | A. S. Kalkat Farming | Gridley, CA 95948 | $69,391 |
| 19 | Clinton W Moffitt/ Clinton & Gail Moffitt Trust | Biggs, CA 95917 | $63,991 |
| 20 | Archer Ranch LLC | Chico, CA 95927 | $63,699 |
* 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