Farm Subsidy information
Shasta County, California
Total Subsidies in Shasta County, California, 2020
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 117
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in Shasta County, California totaled $2,780,000 in in 2020.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mcarthur Livestock | Mcarthur, CA 96056 | $406,184 |
| 2 | Corder Farms Inc | Mcarthur, CA 96056 | $195,949 |
| 3 | Bidwell Ranches Inc | Hat Creek, CA 96040 | $147,944 |
| 4 | Denny Cattle Company LLC | Boston, MA 02113 | $126,691 |
| 5 | Wesley Woolery | Hat Creek, CA 96040 | $125,928 |
| 6 | Russ Red Bluff Ranch LLC | Ferndale, CA 95536 | $100,971 |
| 7 | Hat Creek Grown LLC | Hat Creek, CA 96040 | $95,991 |
| 8 | Jared Anthony Ferguson | Cottonwood, CA 96022 | $83,661 |
| 9 | Timothy A Reid | Penn Valley, CA 95946 | $55,391 |
| 10 | Patrick H Oilar | Mcarthur, CA 96056 | $53,285 |
| 11 | Martin D Lakey | Fall River Mills, CA 96028 | $51,425 |
| 12 | Roy A Graves | Igo, CA 96047 | $40,965 |
| 13 | Tal Neilsen | Cottonwood, CA 96022 | $33,632 |
| 14 | Bar Eleven Ranch | Palo Cedro, CA 96073 | $32,301 |
| 15 | Hagus & Hagus | Redding, CA 96002 | $30,883 |
| 16 | Shannon L And Glenda K Wooten Rvoc Trust | Palo Cedro, CA 96073 | $30,121 |
| 17 | Daniel P Hagus | Anderson, CA 96007 | $27,109 |
| 18 | Bidwell Cattle Company Inc. | Hat Creek, CA 96040 | $26,939 |
| 19 | Hawes River Acres | Palo Cedro, CA 96073 | $26,396 |
| 20 | Ron Anderson | Eagle Point, OR 97524 | $25,926 |
* 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