Emergency Conservation Program in Sonoma County, California, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 35
Recipients of Emergency Conservation Program from farms in Sonoma County, California totaled $861,000 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Emergency Conservation Program 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kenneth Moholt -siebert | Santa Rosa, CA 95403 | $133,327 |
| 2 | Sonoma Land Trust | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $106,839 |
| 3 | Donelan Family Wine Cellars, LLC | Santa Rosa, CA 95403 | $47,688 |
| 4 | John H Wedge | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $44,799 |
| 5 | Steven John Welch | Glen Ellen, CA 95442 | $44,081 |
| 6 | Bastoni Vineyards | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $42,775 |
| 7 | Christian Borcher | Glen Ellen, CA 95442 | $42,450 |
| 8 | Janet Elizabeth Leisen | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $36,690 |
| 9 | John Pelkan | Calistoga, CA 95415 | $31,925 |
| 10 | Walter Byck | Santa Rosa, CA 95403 | $28,593 |
| 11 | Randal Apel | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $27,043 |
| 12 | Elliott Mackey Dba Cavedale Viney | Glen Ellen, CA 95442 | $26,957 |
| 13 | Chris Dolan | San Francisco, CA 94114 | $22,773 |
| 14 | Safari West | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 | $22,766 |
| 15 | Cheryl Lafranchi | Calistoga, CA 94515 | $20,457 |
| 16 | Gordenker Turkey Farm Inc | Glen Ellen, CA 95442 | $20,205 |
| 17 | William H Hinkle | Geyserville, CA 95441 | $19,485 |
| 18 | Richard Keenan | San Francisco, CA 94118 | $18,788 |
| 19 | Stephen Ashton | Glen Ellen, CA 95442 | $16,443 |
| 20 | Viluko Farms LLC | Oakland, CA 94611 | $14,162 |
* 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