Farm Subsidy information
4th District of California
(Rep. Tom McClintock)
Total Subsidies in 4th District of California (Rep. Tom McClintock), 2023
Subsidy Recipients 61 to 80 of 98
Recipients of Total Subsidies from farms in 4th District of California (Rep. Tom McClintock) totaled $2,551,000 in in 2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Total Subsidies 2023 |
---|---|---|---|
61 | Teresa Fine-mondani | Jackson, CA 95642 | $3,297 |
62 | Borda Land & Sheep Co LLC | Gardnerville, NV 89410 | $3,281 |
63 | Patrick J Littlefield | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $3,198 |
64 | Lewis C. Yager, Dba | Ione, CA 95640 | $3,160 |
65 | Richard Hutchison | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $3,009 |
66 | , | $2,976 | |
67 | Donald Hutchison | Sloughhouse, CA 95683 | $2,442 |
68 | John Kirkpatrick & Sons | Jackson, CA 95642 | $2,244 |
69 | Vicini Family Investments Lp | Placerville, CA 95667 | $2,233 |
70 | Kenneth Henry Deaver | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $2,232 |
71 | South Fork Cattle Company LLC | Lotus, CA 95651 | $2,186 |
72 | Steven Todd Garcia | Ione, CA 95640 | $1,963 |
73 | , | $1,282 | |
74 | Donald J Swett | Jackson, CA 95642 | $1,134 |
75 | Daniel Egan | Wilton, CA 95693 | $1,010 |
76 | Ronald Wayne Chaney Jr. | Placerville, CA 95667 | $991 |
77 | J W Dell Orto | Mokelumne Hill, CA 95245 | $871 |
78 | William Penrose Bassett | Jackson, CA 95642 | $849 |
79 | Matthew J Greilich | Plymouth, CA 95669 | $773 |
80 | F I M Corp | Smith, NV 89430 | $757 |
* 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.”