Environmental Quality Incentives Program in Yuba County, California, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 52
Recipients of Environmental Quality Incentives Program from farms in Yuba County, California totaled $429,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Environmental Quality Incentives Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chy Co Gp | Grass Valley, CA 95945 | $42,958 |
| 2 | Surinder Hansra | Olivehurst, CA 95961 | $26,280 |
| 3 | Golden Valley Farms | Yuba City, CA 95993 | $20,832 |
| 4 | Gregory L Foster | Winnemucca, NV 89446 | $20,800 |
| 5 | Ramsaran S Dhanota | Yuba City, CA 95993 | $18,876 |
| 6 | Jeffrey D Boom | Marysville, CA 95901 | $15,029 |
| 7 | Kewal Singh | Yuba City, CA 95991 | $14,952 |
| 8 | Khan Ahmed Khan | Yuba City, CA 95993 | $14,635 |
| 9 | Charles C Messick | Marysville, CA 95901 | $13,456 |
| 10 | Sukhbir S Nagra | Vacaville, CA 95687 | $11,930 |
| 11 | Robert F Krenik | Marysville, CA 95901 | $11,899 |
| 12 | Rahul Family Farms Lp | Yuba City, CA 95993 | $11,735 |
| 13 | The Chy Company | Sacramento, CA 95818 | $11,693 |
| 14 | John W. Yaklich | Marysville, CA 95901 | $11,628 |
| 15 | Paul S Johl | Yuba City, CA 95992 | $10,998 |
| 16 | Blair Butler | Live Oak, CA 95953 | $9,970 |
| 17 | Sartaj Bains | Roseville, CA 95747 | $9,933 |
| 18 | James Waller | Marysville, CA 95901 | $9,223 |
| 19 | Mary M Coble | Yuba City, CA 95993 | $9,110 |
| 20 | James Lague Jr | Oroville, CA 95966 | $8,325 |
* 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