Emergency Conservation Program in Santa Cruz County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 20
Recipients of Emergency Conservation Program from farms in Santa Cruz County, California totaled $193,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Emergency Conservation Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Crj Properties | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $51,112 |
| 2 | Mine Bros Inc | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $28,317 |
| 3 | Domitila Tapia Narez | Salinas, CA 93905 | $26,314 |
| 4 | Dick Peixoto | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $15,200 |
| 5 | Richard Uyematsu Farms Dba | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $14,909 |
| 6 | Steve Dellamora Farms Dba | Davenport, CA 95017 | $13,024 |
| 7 | Camflor Corporation | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $8,026 |
| 8 | Us Abalone, Inc. | Davenport, CA 95017 | $8,000 |
| 9 | Fujii Bros Gp | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $6,413 |
| 10 | Buak Fruit Company Lp | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $4,912 |
| 11 | Murakami Farms | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $4,321 |
| 12 | Western Ranch Co Gp | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $3,379 |
| 13 | Borba & Clark Farms Gp | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $2,495 |
| 14 | Francisco Bugarin | Castroville, CA 95012 | $1,839 |
| 15 | Daniel Padilla | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $960 |
| 16 | Felipe Rodriguez | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $886 |
| 17 | West Branch Floral | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $845 |
| 18 | Santiago Medrano | Watsonville, CA 95076 | $732 |
| 19 | Gerardo Mata | Aromas, CA 95004 | $624 |
| 20 | Natalia Zepeda | Aromas, CA 95004 | $616 |
* 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