Miscellaneous Conservation Programs in Starr County, Texas, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 141 to 160 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 |
---|---|---|---|
141 | Horacio Barrera Jr | Harlingen, TX 78550 | $2,160 |
142 | Alberto Garza | Mission, TX 78574 | $2,080 |
143 | Servando Gonzalez | Delmita, TX 78536 | $2,063 |
144 | Fernando H Garza | San Antonio, TX 78251 | $2,050 |
145 | L Sanchez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $2,050 |
146 | Ramiro R Ramos | Adkins, TX 78101 | $2,050 |
147 | Rolando Gonzalez | Penitas, TX 78576 | $2,015 |
148 | Heraldo Gonzalez | Roma, TX 78584 | $2,015 |
149 | Ernesto Gonzalez Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,966 |
150 | Fidencio Guerra | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,937 |
151 | Leoncio Salinas | Sullivan City, TX 78595 | $1,898 |
152 | Raul Munoz | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,879 |
153 | Jose Venancio Elizondo | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,866 |
154 | Aristeo Richmond | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,750 |
155 | Juan M Garcia | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,625 |
156 | Jose Carlos Saenz | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,624 |
157 | Santos Canales Jr | Premont, TX 78375 | $1,573 |
158 | Jose Antonio Flores | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,528 |
159 | Valeriano De La Garza | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,500 |
160 | Francisco Barrera | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,434 |
* 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.”