Miscellaneous Conservation Programs in Starr County, Texas, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 101 to 120 of 192
Recipients of Miscellaneous Conservation Programs from farms in Starr County, Texas totaled $490,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Miscellaneous Conservation Programs 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
101 | 2 M Ranch Inc | Mission, TX 78572 | $2,500 |
102 | Guerra Cattle Co | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
103 | G & H Farms | San Isidro, TX 78588 | $2,500 |
104 | David Rodriguez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
105 | Lauro Garza Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
106 | Falcon 'el Llano' Ranch | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
107 | Abel L Sanchez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
108 | F & T Farms And Cattle Co | Sullivan City, TX 78595 | $2,500 |
109 | Mary Elizabeth Waller | San Antonio, TX 78212 | $2,500 |
110 | R T Margo Jr Cattle Co | Santa Elena, TX 78591 | $2,500 |
111 | Jose Jaime Trevino | Roma, TX 78584 | $2,500 |
112 | El Bremo Ranch L L C | Center Point, TX 78010 | $2,500 |
113 | Martin Garza | Corpus Christi, TX 78413 | $2,500 |
114 | Jorge D Perez | Mcallen, TX 78504 | $2,500 |
115 | Romulo Benavides III | Los Ebanos, TX 78565 | $2,500 |
116 | Arturo O Trevino Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
117 | Leonel Lopez Sr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,500 |
118 | Amando Pena Jr | Roma, TX 78584 | $2,500 |
119 | Fernando Pena | Roma, TX 78584 | $2,500 |
120 | Tomas D Garcia | Roma, TX 78584 | $2,500 |
* 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.”