Lamb Meat Adjustment Program in 2nd District of Utah (Rep. Chris Stewart), 1995-2021
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 200
Recipients of Lamb Meat Adjustment Program from farms in 2nd District of Utah (Rep. Chris Stewart) totaled $1,351,000 in from 1995-2021.
| Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Lamb Meat Adjustment Program 1995-2021 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bountiful Livestock Company Limit | Woods Cross, UT 84087 | $96,526 |
| 2 | Clark Brothers | Cedar City, UT 84721 | $82,084 |
| 3 | Williams Livestock Inc | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $66,231 |
| 4 | Bradley K Guymon | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $55,860 |
| 5 | W Craig Jones | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $40,209 |
| 6 | Thomas Gardner | Ely, NV 89301 | $39,924 |
| 7 | Andrew G Taft | Bicknell, UT 84715 | $39,206 |
| 8 | Allen B Dalley | Summit, UT 84772 | $37,840 |
| 9 | Legrande Webster | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $35,854 |
| 10 | Clarence Halterman | Parowan, UT 84761 | $35,244 |
| 11 | David M Burton | Parowan, UT 84761 | $32,227 |
| 12 | Stephen Gillmor Sheep Co | Delta, UT 84624 | $32,000 |
| 13 | Berkley Anderson | Glenwood, UT 84730 | $29,427 |
| 14 | Brent F Hunter | Cedar City, UT 84721 | $26,936 |
| 15 | Lamoreaux Sheep | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $25,141 |
| 16 | Jack Smith | Cedar City, UT 84720 | $24,049 |
| 17 | H A Farms Inc | Parowan, UT 84761 | $23,393 |
| 18 | Stanton J Gleave | Kingston, UT 84743 | $22,500 |
| 19 | Chappell Farms Inc | Lyman, UT 84749 | $21,504 |
| 20 | Sherratt Farms | Cedar City, UT 84721 | $20,586 |
* 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.”
Next >>
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