Wool and Mohair Programs in 2nd District of California (Rep. Jared Huffman), 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 21 to 40 of 78
Recipients of Wool and Mohair Programs from farms in 2nd District of California (Rep. Jared Huffman) totaled $169,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Wool and Mohair Programs 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | G F Timmons & Son | Mckinleyville, CA 95519 | $2,391 |
| 22 | Edward Jere Cox | Hydesville, CA 95547 | $1,977 |
| 23 | R A Borello Estate | Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 | $1,950 |
| 24 | Brenda Albini | Valley Ford, CA 94972 | $1,845 |
| 25 | Charles A Zana | Fortuna, CA 95540 | $1,694 |
| 26 | Francis Sweet | Petrolia, CA 95558 | $1,680 |
| 27 | Morrison Sisters | Ferndale, CA 95536 | $1,610 |
| 28 | Robert De La Vergne | Winston Salem, NC 27101 | $1,596 |
| 29 | James Spaletta Sr | Valley Ford, CA 94972 | $1,577 |
| 30 | Jim Porter | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $1,466 |
| 31 | Gregory A Smith | Petrolia, CA 95558 | $1,353 |
| 32 | Eleanor Romanini | Orick, CA 95555 | $1,299 |
| 33 | Anna Burbank | Petaluma, CA 94952 | $1,121 |
| 34 | Arlin Grandy | Ferndale, CA 95536 | $1,011 |
| 35 | Henry Grossi & Son Dairy | Marshall, CA 94940 | $957 |
| 36 | Donald Gillespie | Petrolia, CA 95558 | $938 |
| 37 | Hanne Lotte Schmidt | San Francisco, CA 94110 | $906 |
| 38 | Donald Mills | Upper Lake, CA 95485 | $853 |
| 39 | Dagnija Meyer | Loleta, CA 95551 | $839 |
| 40 | Lynette Cornett | Tomales, CA 94971 | $634 |
* 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.”
Federal crop insurance reform vital for incentivizing climate adaptation on farms
Farm Subsidies Ballooned Under Trump
Is Federal Crop Insurance Policy Leading to Another Dust Bowl?
Double Dipping:
The "Farm Crisis" Myth
Crying Wolf