Farm Subsidy information
Napa County, California
Total Subsidies in Napa County, California, 2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 167
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Napa County, California totaled $16,881,000 in in 2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chateau Montelena LLC | Calistoga, CA 94515 | $500,000 |
| 2 | Frediani Vineyards LLC | Calistoga, CA 94515 | $254,876 |
| 3 | Peter R Mondavi Family Limited Partnership | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $250,000 |
| 4 | Kenneth E And Gail Laird Revocable Trust - Kenneth | Napa, CA 94558 | $250,000 |
| 5 | Stewart Cellars LLC | Rutherford, CA 94573 | $239,476 |
| 6 | Edcora Vineyard LLC | Napa, CA 94558 | $235,453 |
| 7 | Chappellet Vineyard LLC | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $212,906 |
| 8 | Dunnigan Hills | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $178,155 |
| 9 | Rancho Chimiles Limited Partnership | Napa, CA 94558 | $171,747 |
| 10 | Urv, LLC | Napa, CA 94558 | $154,933 |
| 11 | Mission Livestock Management | Dixon, CA 95620 | $150,487 |
| 12 | Mondavi Family Partners LLC | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $150,254 |
| 13 | Gordon Ranch Inc | Napa, CA 94558 | $136,058 |
| 14 | Collins Family Vineyards, LLC | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $132,042 |
| 15 | Lewelling Associates | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $114,655 |
| 16 | Alko Ranch LLC | Napa, CA 94558 | $111,521 |
| 17 | Susanna R. Kelham | Oakville, CA 94562 | $109,626 |
| 18 | Jaeger Vineyards | Napa, CA 94558 | $107,846 |
| 19 | Babcock Vineyard Inc | Fairfield, CA 94534 | $105,754 |
| 20 | Califrance Corp/chardonnay Vineyards Ltd. | Oakland, CA 94610 | $104,349 |
* 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