Livestock Disaster and Emergency Programs in Starr County, Texas, 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 577
Recipients of Livestock Disaster and Emergency Programs from farms in Starr County, Texas totaled $2,940,000 in from 1995-2021.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Livestock Disaster and Emergency Programs 1995-2021 |
---|---|---|---|
21 | Romeo Alaniz | San Isidro, TX 78588 | $23,331 |
22 | Rodolfo S Garza | Santa Elena, TX 78591 | $22,889 |
23 | Raul Villarreal | Delmita, TX 78536 | $21,954 |
24 | Guerra Cattle Co | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $21,848 |
25 | Lauro H Salinas Est | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $21,543 |
26 | Jose Antonio Flores | Roma, TX 78584 | $21,349 |
27 | Lazaro Rodriguez Sr | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $20,370 |
28 | Abel N Gonzalez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $20,176 |
29 | Gonzalez Bros | Roma, TX 78584 | $20,111 |
30 | Don Cameron Jr | Jourdanton, TX 78026 | $19,884 |
31 | Alonzo Lopez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $18,887 |
32 | Abel L Sanchez | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $18,592 |
33 | Arnulfo Guerra | Roma, TX 78584 | $18,055 |
34 | Derly F Guerra | Mission, TX 78572 | $18,000 |
35 | Arturo D Ibarra | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $17,472 |
36 | Jose Pedro Olivares | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $17,201 |
37 | Amaro Salinas | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $16,948 |
38 | Romeo Salinas | Rio Grande City, TX 78582 | $16,559 |
39 | Bernardo Garcia | Garciasville, TX 78547 | $16,295 |
40 | Isidro Gutierrez | Falcon Heights, TX 78545 | $15,472 |
* 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.”