Miscellaneous Conservation Programs in Starr County, Texas, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 161 to 180 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 |
---|---|---|---|
161 | Jose Adan Guerra | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,398 |
162 | Jose Angel Guerra | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,325 |
163 | Maria Nidia Benavides | Sullivan City, TX 78595 | $1,320 |
164 | Juan Caro Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,300 |
165 | Irma G Barrera | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,300 |
166 | Rodolfo T Garza | Santa Elena, TX 78591 | $1,287 |
167 | Geronimo Guerra Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,250 |
168 | Javier Hernan Canales | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,250 |
169 | Jorge Eduardo Canales | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,250 |
170 | Ramoncita Guerra | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,200 |
171 | Ivo Perez Jr | Roma, TX 78584 | $1,200 |
172 | Efrain Garcia | Palmhurst, TX 78573 | $1,125 |
173 | Irma A Pena | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,105 |
174 | Elias Lopez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,063 |
175 | Arturo Garza | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $1,025 |
176 | Carlos A Garza | Mcallen, TX 78504 | $1,025 |
177 | Saul F Hinojosa | Mission, TX 78572 | $1,014 |
178 | Gustavo Garza Jr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $925 |
179 | Jorge Alberto Gonzalez | Roma, TX 78584 | $845 |
180 | Jose M Barrera | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $750 |
* 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.”