Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Napa County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 54
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in Napa County, California totaled $406,000 in from 1995-2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2021 |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Markham Vineyards | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $29,003 |
2 | Mike Oliver | Oakville, CA 94562 | $22,418 |
3 | Fosters Wine Estates America's Co | Napa, CA 94558 | $17,352 |
4 | Jpcr Partnership | Auburn, CA 95603 | $16,914 |
5 | Larkmead Vineyards | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $15,932 |
6 | Tambor Vineyards LLC | Napa, CA 94558 | $15,381 |
7 | Smith-madrone | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $14,585 |
8 | Huneeus Vintners LLC | Rutherford, CA 94573 | $12,857 |
9 | Daniel George Mcqueeney | Napa, CA 94558 | $12,180 |
10 | Phillip Lamoreaux | Napa, CA 94558 | $12,114 |
11 | Gamble Family Investment | Napa, CA 94558 | $10,512 |
12 | Michael Clark | Napa, CA 94558 | $10,415 |
13 | Pat George | Berkeley, CA 94705 | $10,000 |
14 | Frogs Leap Winery | Rutherford, CA 94573 | $10,000 |
15 | James Konrad | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $9,549 |
16 | Ed Schulz | Napa, CA 94558 | $9,469 |
17 | Napa County Land Trust | Napa, CA 94559 | $8,944 |
18 | Rigiwin Ag | Napa, CA 94558 | $8,891 |
19 | William H White | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $8,705 |
20 | Jean Edwards | Saint Helena, CA 94574 | $8,694 |
* 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 >>