Margin Protection Program in Sonoma County, California, 2019
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 45
Recipients of Margin Protection Program from farms in Sonoma County, California totaled $24,643 in in 2019.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Margin Protection Program 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bordessa Family Dairies Gp | Valley Ford, CA 94972 | $1,176 |
| 2 | Robert Camozzi II | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $780 |
| 3 | George Mcclelland | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $697 |
| 4 | Spaletta Ranch | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $652 |
| 5 | Ronald E Wilson Dba Diamond W Dairy Ranch | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $639 |
| 6 | E & M Deniz Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94954 | $615 |
| 7 | Moreda Valley Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $607 |
| 8 | Bucher Farms Inc | Healdsburg, CA 95448 | $607 |
| 9 | Mertens Dairy | Sonoma, CA 95476 | $607 |
| 10 | Morrison Bros Dairy | Santa Rosa, CA 95407 | $607 |
| 11 | Joseph Camozzi Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $605 |
| 12 | John A Mattos Jr | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $604 |
| 13 | George Bianchi Inc | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $603 |
| 14 | Stan Poncia | Santa Rosa, CA 95407 | $602 |
| 15 | Eugene Camozzi | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $600 |
| 16 | Beretta Dairy | Santa Rosa, CA 95407 | $599 |
| 17 | Johnson & Neles Dairy | Sonoma, CA 95476 | $598 |
| 18 | Henry Perucchi & Son | Bodega, CA 94922 | $594 |
| 19 | Gerald Spaletta Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94975 | $593 |
| 20 | Debernardi Dairy Inc | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $588 |
* 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