Total Conservation Programs in Sonoma County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 126
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in Sonoma County, California totaled $1,509,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | James Riebli Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $118,652 |
| 2 | Gold Ridge Properties | Sebastopol, CA 95473 | $52,640 |
| 3 | Preston Vineyards | Healdsburg, CA 95448 | $50,000 |
| 4 | Bucher Farms Inc | Healdsburg, CA 95448 | $45,744 |
| 5 | Henry Wendt III | Healdsburg, CA 95448 | $41,275 |
| 6 | Mulas Dairy Company | Sonoma, CA 95476 | $41,107 |
| 7 | John W Florence | Geyserville, CA 95441 | $35,000 |
| 8 | Adelino B Alves | Petaluma, CA 94955 | $33,449 |
| 9 | Sonoma Royale LLC | Cloverdale, CA 95425 | $32,745 |
| 10 | Deer Valley Dairy Inc | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $29,409 |
| 11 | Stage Gulch Ranch | Petaluma, CA 94954 | $27,738 |
| 12 | Pegaso Ranch | Bodega Bay, CA 94923 | $27,681 |
| 13 | Pacheco Dairy | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $27,008 |
| 14 | Gillian Mahrt | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $26,601 |
| 15 | Chileno Valley Farms Inc | Novato, CA 94945 | $26,250 |
| 16 | Nina Pedersen | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $26,055 |
| 17 | Albert Moretti Dairy | Santa Rosa, CA 95407 | $25,860 |
| 18 | Linda Johnson | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $24,764 |
| 19 | Jlt Ranch | Petaluma, CA 94954 | $24,359 |
| 20 | Emanuel A Machado | Bodega, CA 94922 | $24,313 |
* 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