Total Conservation Programs in Charleston County, South Carolina, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 41 to 60 of 71
Recipients of Total Conservation Programs from farms in Charleston County, South Carolina totaled $823,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Conservation Programs 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
41 | J. Richard Sosnowski Delete | Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487 | $2,584 |
42 | William Lee Hart Jr | San Francisco, CA 94116 | $2,331 |
43 | Thomas C Garvin Jr | Adams Run, SC 29426 | $2,324 |
44 | Clarence R Boyer Jr | Johns Island, SC 29455 | $2,310 |
45 | E H Walpole Jr | Johns Island, SC 29455 | $2,246 |
46 | Frank E Middleton Jr | Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487 | $1,992 |
47 | George Days | Edisto Island, SC 29438 | $1,836 |
48 | J Sidi Limehouse III | Johns Island, SC 29455 | $1,814 |
49 | Gyrdel Jerome Green | Yonges Island, SC 29449 | $1,644 |
50 | E H Walpole Jr | Johns Island, SC 29455 | $1,524 |
51 | John Frampton | Edisto Island, SC 29438 | $1,486 |
52 | Rudy Payne | Yonges Island, SC 29449 | $1,440 |
53 | Robert Brown | Edisto Island, SC 29438 | $1,434 |
54 | Daniel F Kennerty | Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487 | $1,373 |
55 | Louis Richard Tumbleston | Hollywood, SC 29449 | $1,240 |
56 | John Simmons | Johns Island, SC 29457 | $1,204 |
57 | Virginia Runyon | Sullivans Island, SC 29482 | $1,186 |
58 | Thomas Johnson | Johns Island, SC 29455 | $952 |
59 | E D Blakeney III | Hollywood, SC 29449 | $874 |
60 | W Lindsay Oswald | Charleston, SC 29412 | $744 |
* 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.”