Emergency Conservation Program in Napa County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 102
Recipients of Emergency Conservation Program from farms in Napa County, California totaled $1,345,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Emergency Conservation Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mission Livestock Management | Dixon, CA 95620 | $150,487 |
| 2 | Fosters Wine Estates America's Co | Napa, CA 94558 | $73,131 |
| 3 | Michael W Mcqueeney | Napa, CA 94558 | $49,455 |
| 4 | Newton Vineyard LLC | Yountville, CA 94599 | $49,000 |
| 5 | Daniel George Mcqueeney | Napa, CA 94558 | $48,801 |
| 6 | Domaine Chandon Inc | Yountville, CA 94599 | $41,980 |
| 7 | Twin Creeks Vineyard | Napa, CA 94558 | $39,635 |
| 8 | Christina Vineyards | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $38,885 |
| 9 | Montesole Usa Ltd Inc | Rutherford, CA 94573 | $38,080 |
| 10 | Kathleen R Mcguire | Valparaiso, IN 46383 | $29,495 |
| 11 | Green Valley Ranch | Napa, CA 94558 | $25,799 |
| 12 | George Pappas | Napa, CA 94558 | $25,311 |
| 13 | Orion Vineyards Inc | Long Beach, CA 90806 | $24,576 |
| 14 | Carol Vineyards LLC | Calistoga, CA 94515 | $24,534 |
| 15 | Marvin Fagundes | Vallejo, CA 94589 | $24,504 |
| 16 | Rullo-pradel | Napa, CA 94559 | $24,320 |
| 17 | Pacific Livestock Inc | Davis, CA 95617 | $23,172 |
| 18 | Manuel Frias | San Francisco, CA 94116 | $23,119 |
| 19 | Dalraddy Vineyards | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $21,918 |
| 20 | Gil Pridmore | Napa, CA 94558 | $20,482 |
* 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