COTTON ALLOTM
Et'TS
OWEN WEST MCWHORTER.
JR.
COTTON ALLOTMENTS
I. Introduct1on
Dur1ng the early 1930s, Congress sought to provide the
government w1th more eff1cient and d1rect control 'over
qu.nt1ti~s
the nat1on's farms and the vast
of commod1t1es
the farmers and increased production methods were produc1ng.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(hereafter, ASCS) was one of the 'agencies established to
administer the In.'ograms directed toward this control.
One
method developed was the crop quota system wh1ch limited the
amount of a ~articular ' commodity a farmer could profitably
plant .
The allotment system was developed as a measur1ng
tool in determining the basis for the quota system and has
survived as a factor in the administrat10n of several
subsequent programs of the ASCS.
It is the purpose of this paper to acqua1nt the reader
with the basic administration of the allotment system.
The
scope has b.en narrowed to a discussion of only the upland
cotton allotment programs.
The specific regulations for
other commodities may vary from those regulations concerning
' cotton, but the basic information provided in the paper
be applied
~o
,
all
comm~dities
m
ar
generally. This paper i $
obviously not' des'igneda!s a publishable treatise on specific:
interpretatjons
of the s'tatutes and regulations dlscu,ssed.
,
,
-2-
Rather, is is hoped that the information contained herein
will be of
~enera1
educational value so that the lawyer may
be aware of this part of the farmer's business and some of
the problems the farmer may encounter with the allotment
system and programs.
I I. Hi story and Purpose
Farm marketing quotas and acreage allotments as they
now exist were initially authorized by the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 19a8.
1
It was the intent of Congress in
1938 to, among others, conserve national resourses, prevent wasteful use of soil fertility, to assist in the marketing of agricultural commodities for domestic crinsumption and
export, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce in a
variety of commodities to provide an orderly, adequate,. and
balanced flow of such commodities in interstate and foreign
comme rce.
2
Also, the farmer was to be assisted in obtaining
parity prices, parity of income, and consumers were to be
benefited by a steady supply at fair prices.
3
The quota system for cotton authorized by the 1938 Act
is till regulated by the statutes
4
,
of these statutes to upland cotton
th~
but the applicability
5
was sharply limited by
6
As a result of the 1970 Act,
'i
the statutes' pertaining to the marketing quota system do
Agricu1utra1 . Act of 1970.
7
not apply to upland cotton for the 1971 through 1977 crops.
-3-
The acreage
~ allotments
utilized by the quota programs
~re
still operative. however. and it is this factor of the
ASCS programs that will be discussed .
. III.
Dete~mination
of Allotments
A. National Basis :
,
.I
The 1938' Aci establ ~ shed a national base acreage
.
B
allotment for upland cotton.
Each year the Secretary of
Agriculture establishes a national base acreage allotment.
This allotm~nt is the number of acres. base~ on expected
national yi~ld per ~cre. sufficient to produce an amount of
cotton equal' to the estimated domestic consumption for that
9
year. plus an additional amount wot to exceed 25 per cent
10
to meet the national production goal.
The statute pro~ides
that the natinal base .acreage allotment for the 1974
,
11
through 1977 crops shall not be less than 11 million acres.
B. State allotment
Each state then receives its allotment based proportionately on .the acreage planted to upland cotton during the five
calendar years immediately preceeding. with adjustments for
12
abnormal weather conditions or other natural disasters.
C. County allotment
The counties receive an allotment on the same basis as
13
the states ..:' The ' state comm~ttee may reserve up to 2 per cent
" -4-
of the st~te ; allotment :tQ make adjustments for countiej
adversely affected by ab~ormal conditions, or for small
or new farms ', or
to correct inequities and to prevent
14
hardship.
The county base acreage allotment is apportioned to
established cotton farms on the basis of the farm base
15
acreage for the preceeding year.
Farms on which upland
cotton was not planted for the preceeding three years may
receive a proportionate allotment set by the county committee
based on land, labor, equipment available for upland cotton,
crop-rotation practices, soil and other physical facilities.
The acreage ' for new farms comes from the county reserves
which may be up to ten per cent of the county allotment.
16
17
If a farmer fails to plant at least 90 per cent of the
total acreage of cotton allotted, the basis for that farm
in succeeding years may be reduced proportionately, not to
18
exceed a 20 , per cent reduction.
Agriculture may permit
produc~rs
Also, the Secretary of
of cotton to have acreage
devoted to soybeans, wheat, feed grains, guar, castor beans,
triticale, oats, rye, or such other crops as may be , designated
without impairing their basic allotment for cotton.
19
If
no acreage '; s pl anted to cotton, or a subst1 tute crop, for
any three consecutive crop years, that farm shall lose its
-5-
20
base acreage allotment;
If any part of the ~ arm base acreage allotment will
not be planted, it may be voluntarily surrendered to the
county committee for reapportionment.
The county committee
,
I
may voluntarily surrender the excess allotment to the state
committee.Suchal~otment will ' be considered to have been
planted on the acreage from which it was first surrendered
21
rather than that to which it was 'inally transferred.
In order for a ri'ew cotton farm to recei ve a base
acreage allotment, it 'must meet specific criteria.
The
owner must file written application on or before February
15 of the year in which the allotment is requested.
Neither the ' owner nor the operator shall own or operate
any other farm in the United States for which an upland
"cotton base acreage allotment is establ ished for the current
year and the operator must expect to receive 50 per cent
of his income from farming during that year.
The farm
22
must be physically suitalbe for cotton production.
IV. County Committees
It is
app~rent
that the county committee has a
significant amount of power under the statutes in
re~­
ulating the acreage allotment systme and the other programs
administered by the ASCS.
The county committee has the
purpose of directin~ ~he administration of sections 7
through
17 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of
1936. the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. the
Sugar Act of '1940. the Soil Bank Act. and any other such
acts Congress or the Secretary of Agriculture may
23
nate.
~esig-
A. Selection of Committee Members
The county committee is selected at a convention of
community committee members specially convened for that
purpose.
24
Each county is divided into communities
and the community representatives are elected by the
popular vote with the voters' qualifications set by
the regulations .
25
Each community delegate to the
26
county convention is entitled to one vote.
Three
county co'm mittee members are chosen for a term of threeyears and the terms are staggered with a term expiring
every two years.
27
8. Eligibility of Committee Members
To be eligible to hold office as a county committee
member or a community committee member. a person must
. 28
be eligible to vote in the county.
He must be a resident
29
in the county.
A\ countycommittee member may not have
~7-
30
passed his 70th birthday,
and may not have served three
consecutive terms as a county committee member just
31
prior to the current election.
Persons holding a
federal, state, or county elective office are generally
ineli9ible~0 beme~bers of a county committee, except
that members of school boards, soil conservation district
boards, drainage district boards, weed control district
boards, or similar boards are not ineligible because of
32
such membership.
Also, persons who are officers or
delegate1 representing a political party or political
organization are ineligible to be county committee mem33
bers.
The election of a county committee member may be
challenged by any eligible voter in the county by appeal
34
to the county committee.
The tounty committee then elected has the general
responsibility for carrying out the agricultural conservation program, the price support programs, the acreage
allotment programs
and~arketing
quota programs, the wool
incentive payment program, the programs of the Soil
Bank Act, the sugai program, and any other program or
functions assigned to it !by the Secretary of Agriculture.
As a general policy, the county committee hires the
I
•
,~
director of ,: the ctiunty ASCS office who is responsible
35
-8-
for the general administration of the policies and programs
of ' the county committee.
V. Use of Allotments
With the elimination of marketing quotas for upland
cotton of the ' 1971 through 1977 crops,
36
the primary use
for setting farm cotton acreage allotments was spent.
Acreage allotments are still used in calculations involving
other programs administered by the ASCS.
The two most fre-
quently encountered programs utilizing the acreage allotment
as a determinative factor in their administration are the
deficiency payment program and the disaster payment program.
37
A. Deficiency Program
The deficiency payment program for upland cotton be.ginning with the 1971 crop is authorized by 7 U.S.C. §1444 (e)
(2).
In calculating the basis for price support deficiency
payments under , the statute , . the farmer may use the hi gher
of two methods outlined in the statbte.
38
The payments
are made available for i farm on the quantity of upland cotton
determined by' multiplying the acreage planted within the
farm base ac~~age allotment for the farm for that crop by the
39
The average_yield
ave~age yield established for the farm.
is determined on the basis of actual yield per harvested acre
40
,
There are also provl . ~ions
for the three ~ preceedi ng years.
-9-
protecting t'he 'farmer whose yfeld
41
di SIsters.
1$
affected by natural
B. Disaster Program
The statute also,provides for relief to producers who
were prevented "' from planti'ng any portion of the allotment
to cotton
du~
to natural disasters or conditions beyond the
control of, the producer.
42
A producer may receive payments
based upon either the statutory rate set by Congress or
.
43
one-third of the established price.
If the total quantity
of cotton which is able to be harvested is less ' than twothirds of the , farm base acreage allotment times the average
yield established for the farm, the rate of payment for the
deficiency in production below 100 per cent shall be the
higher ' of th. statutory rate set by Congress or one-third
..
44
of the established price.
VI. Transferability of Allotments
,
.'
The use ' of .farm base acreage allotments as determinative
factors in calculating payments to the producers has resulted
45
' in the all~t~e~t itself becoming a valuable item.
The
statute allowiig the cotton allotments to be transferred gives
the allotments the characteristics of an intangible ,form of
46 ,
property.
It is not'an unlimited personal property rtght, however.
-10-
As the Court of : Appea 1 s for the Fifth Circuit said in Allen v.
47
,
Oavid,
"Ther. are no personal rights of property created .•..
The
Agricultura~
Act is a public law; therefore, no vested
rights may be obtained uner it .
The chief purpose of the Act
is to control the production of certain agricultural pro.ducts .... "
The court cautioned that the producers were free
to use their allotments only in the manner conditioned by
Congress.
48
Only upland cotton allotments are transferable.
49
The
owner and operator of any farm may sell or lease all or any
part of his farm base acreage allotment to any other owner
or operator of a farm for transfer to such farm, or the
may be transferred to any other farm owned or
50
controlled by him.
Transfer by sale is a permanent transallo~ment
fer of the allotment and the base acreage allotment history
51
from one far~ to the other.
Transfers by lease are only
for the term of the lease and the history remains in the
52
county from which the acreage was transferred.
Transfers
by the owner to another farm owned or controlled by him
may be either permanent or for a term of years, however it
53
is designated upon application to the county committee.
No temporary transfers for a term of years, entered into
after March
15~
1970, . may be approved by the county committee
-11-
for 1978 and subsequent crops.
As a general
rule~
transfers of allotments may be made
. only between farms within the
transfer across
co~nty
54
sa~e
county.
55
In order to
lines, the county committee of the
county from which the allotment is being transferred
finds that a demand no longer exists for the allotments in
that county and approves the transfer.
56
In Thomas v. County Office Committee of Cameraon County,
plaintiff appealed a determination by the Cameron County and
Hidalgo County review committees declaring that a demand
existed in Cameron County for the allotments which were
the subject of plaintiff's applications and that there was
no demand in Hidalgo County for such allotments.
The court
remanded the case to the review committee because the
committee failed to enunciate the leg~l pr i nciples to whiCh
the committee applied the evidence produced at the hearing
and failed to divulge the factual determinations made by
the review committee in its considerations.
The court
tried to facilitate the review committee's determinations on
remand by defining the court's interpretation of the word
"demand" as used in the Agriculture Act of 1970 which sets
,
forth the requirement.
58
The
word "demand" was determined
to create a · t~si whereby the 60unty committee and review
57
- i2-
committee would limit its consideration to the 'determination
of whether produceri. otherwise entitled to additional cotton
allotments, who reside in the transferor county desfre to
acquire the allotments sought to be transferred out of
thei r county.
The general economic conditions of either
county or the needs or demands of any persons or businesses
in particular are not to be considered.
According to the
,
Thomas opinion, it was the intent of Congress to measure
the desire of~ the producers in the transferor county to
acquire the allotments in question by evidence of a determination whether there was an active market for the purchase
of the allotments on the day of the committee's decision.
Evidence
"
ten~ing
to show such a market would include a
showing of active trading between that county's producers
in obtaining another county's allotment, or a showing
that in-county producers had been actively trading within
that county.
The court ruled out any consideration of
59
"demand"
ba~ed
on ' future expectation of a market.
The statute protects creditors from a loss of security
by providing that no transfer of allotment from a farm
subject to a mortgage ,or other lien shall
be permitted
60
unless the transfer is agreed to by the lienholder.
The land in the farm from which the entire allotment and
-13-
history have been transferred is not eligible for a new
allotment for five y~~rs .aftertransfer.
If a farm which has a base
a~reage
61
allotment is
divided into smaller tracts through sale, the acreage allotment and history is divided proportionately as the cropland
is divided unless
s~ecial
circumstances prevail such as
part of the farm being taken by eminent domain, or the
62
tract is to u~ed for non-agricultural pruposes.
A. Constiiution of a "Farm"
In determining the application of the rules regulating
~f
the transfer
allotments, it is important to determine
what constitutes a farm.
Generally, a farm includes all
land operated by one person as · a single farming unit with
,
63
several exceptions provided by the regulations.
In
I
determining ' the constitution of a farm, the county committee
64
should look to the ownership and operation - of the farm.
Land which is , being operated by one person with a unity of
cropping
prac~ices,
, ,
labor, bookeepping and management, may
65
be considered to be a single farming unit.
The operator
66
should be in control of the farming operations.
The
regulations will allow, therefore, the land under the ownership and control of one individual to :be considered as one
-14-
farm even though 1he land ~may not be contiguous, so long
as the criteria are met to the satisfaction of the county
. committee.
The advantage to the farmer with more than
one tract of land ,is that he may plant all of one tract
in cotton and all of another in some other crop and use all
of his allotment on the one tract planted in cotton.
This
will be an obvious advantage in the management of the
i
operation, making i t mo're economically productive.
This
arrangement may also be 'more economically productive by
allowing the farmer to utilize whatever advantage one
tract of land;' may possess over another to increase his
average yield: for price support ' and other program calculations.
VII. Appeal of Allotment Determinations
A. Admi~istrative Review
Any farmer who is dissati'sfied with -his farm marketing
quota as established by the county committee, may fil e an
application for review within 15 days from the date he
receives notice of his farm acreage allotment.
67
This
statute is applicable to the appeal of allotments as set
by the county ' committee even though the quota system for
68
Upon application
upland cotton is no\onger applicable.
-15-
for review. the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint three
farmers from the same or nearby counties. none of whom
may be a member of the county committee whose acts· are
69
being appealed, to serve as a review committee.
The county review committee is limited to consideration
of determinations by the county committee.
70
In Fulford v.
the court observed that the system established
by Congress assured the dissatisfied farmer a local appeal
to a local review committee on matters having a local
impact.
The review committee has jurisdiction to
hea~ '
applica-
tions respecting allotments established or denied by written
71
notice of the county committee within its area of venue.
lt is apparent then that the county committee must first act
to either approve or deny an application before the review
72
committee has jurisdiction to act.
A complete failure of
the county committee to act is properly attacked by a writ
of mandamus.
73
The review committee is permitted to hear only those
matters as may ' beconsidered by the county committee in
74
consideration of the matter being appealed.
,
.
The function
,
of· the review committee, therefore, is to insure that the
county committee is not guilty of "discrimination, whether
-16-
intentional. in*dvertent •. corrupt. or accidental,"
75
The
farmer may be ~~vised. therefore. when appearing before the
review committee to show that the county committee did
not act in accordance with the statute or
regulati~n.
rather '
than an attempt at challenging the statute or regul.tlon Itself,
76
As a general rule. the applicant in a review of the
county committee's acts has the burden of proof as to all
77
78
issues of fact rafsed by .him.
In Loutares v. Smith.
the
'court stated that the burden was on the committee prior to
the time the appellant bears the burden and the county
committee has the burden to place before the review committee
..
the facts on whi~h the challenged ruling was based, But it
does not appear that the court was attempting to lift the ·
burden of proof from the plaintiff.
Loutares
~ourt
The statements of the
may be interpreted as consistent with the
general requirement that the committee as an administrative
agency must keep records of the hearings and make such
information public regarding the facts and considerations
.
79
known only to itself which produced ·the acts challenged.
After the facts upon which the committee made its decision
are made available to the plaintiff. the burden of proof is
,
on ·the plaintiff t6 show by a preponderance of the evidence
80
The proceeding
the irregular acts of the county committee.
may be reopened if: (a) the appeal is timely made within
-17-
fifteen days; (b) the regulations are followed after timely
81
appeal.
A' determination is binding on all
if:
~arties
(a) it was renderedaftei a full evidentiary hearing; and
(b) the farmer had in good faith relied upon the determina82
tion.
B. Judicial Review
If the farmer is dissatisfied with the decission of the
review commi·tiee, he may file against the review committee
in United
St~tes
district court or in any court of record
of the state having general jurisdiction, sitting in the
83
county or the district in which the farm is located.
The
.,
bill in equity must be filed within fifteen days of receipt
I
of the dete'~~nation of the review committee.
84
Upon service
of process, the review committee must file a transcript of
85
the record of the prior hearing with its findings of fact.
The plaintiff must have exhausted his administrative remedies
unless the challenge is beyond the jurisdiction of the
administrative committee, such as an attack on the constitutionality of a regulation.
87
The couris usually give the determination of the
administrative committees controlling weight unless there
is substantial evidence that the committee's determinations
were completely erroneous.
A review court will not usually
substitute its views for that of the committee unless the
committee's determination in a particualr case is "so
86
,-18-
unr,easonabley arbitrary .. or capricous that the court must
conclude that the administrative action was unlawful."
88
The review of the court is limited to questions of law.
89
If a question of fact is undecided and it is necessary for
determination of the case by the court, the question of
fact will be sent to the review committee for its solution.
90
The trial before the court is not a trail de vovo as was
91
the reveiw committee hearing
and the court must affirm
the review committee's determination or remand the
"
,
proceeding with direction to make such determination in
accordance with the law and as the law requires.
9&
VIII. Conclusion
The admlnistration of the upland cotton allotment
' programs by the ASCS is an attempt to provide an , orderly
means of control over the farmer and his products due the
role these commodities play in the economic stability of the
,country . Even though the bulk of the controls placed on
farmers in the growing of these commodities and utilization
of the cropland . were repealed by the Agriculture Act of 1970
and subsequent amendments, the allotment system is still used
as a tool for measuring the farmer's right to benefits under
other programs administered by the ASCS. A general
familiarization with the allotment system will enable the
lawyer to appreciate the problems of the farmer who becomes
-19-
dissatisfied with the ap,plication of these programs to
his business.
ADDENDUM
In addition to the commodity allotment programs, the
ASCS also administers
s'lY~Cia1 programs whi~h are detail in
,
7 CFR §75D -~780, Most of these special programs do not
affect the West Texas farmer in the operation of his
business.
They will be considered here only briefly to
familiarize the reader .with the nature of the programs
Which the ASCS administers.
A. Soi18ank
The Soil·· 8ink program isno longer carried in the Code
of Federal Regulation..
Since the purpose of the Soil Bank
,
program has [ been eliminated by the nation's swing to i .ull
production, : no new Soil Bank contracts are authorized for
this area . . The local ASCS office is not aware of any such ·
!
contracts previously entered which are presently in force .
What few contracts that were initially executed in this area
wer~
cancelled upon choice of the farmer by the Secretary
of Agriculture in 1973 . Therefore, the Soil Bank program is
no longer an actiVe program administered by the ASCS.
B.. Land Use
Program
Adju~tment
The Land Use Adjustment Program provided for in 7 CFR
§751 (1974), 'is the re'gu1ationsproviding for cropland adjust\
ments for the years 196.6 through 1969 . The purposes of thi s
\
.
'
program were 'to reduce the' costs of the farm programs, assist
the farmers in turning land to non-agricultural uses, promote
development
and
o~
the nation's soil, water, forest, wildlife,
recreaticina1reso~rses,
and establish, protect,
and
A-2
preserve open spaces
a~d
natural beauty.
That is. the
program diverted cropland norma11 used for production of
allotment crops " to other uses with adjustment payments to
the producers for the acreage diverted.
93
expired after 1969.
This program
C. Water Bank Program
The Water Bank Program was
estab1i~hed
in 1972
94
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into
agreements and make payments to eligible persons in
important migratory and water fowl nesting and breeding
areas in specified wetlands.
Also. the program is
designed to reduce runoff, soil and wind erosion,
contribute
t~
water quality,
flood control, to contribute to
and
improved ~
and reduce stream "sedimentation, to
.I .
contribute to improved subsurface moisture. to reduce acres
of new land coming into production and to retire lands now
in agriculture production, to enhance natural beauty of the
landscape, and to promote comprehensive and total water
95
management.
The program is carried out inthe field by
the ASCS applies only to the states of California. Louisiana.
Maine, Minnesotta, Mississi.ppi, Montana, Nebraska. North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont. Washington. and
9&
Wisconsin.
D. Regional Programs
This
ASCS
s.~tion
of the regulations administering the
programs applies only to the Appalachian land
A-3
Stabilizatio~
and Conservation Program and has
n~
applicability ,to West Texas.
' E.
Indemnity Payment Pro'grams
Two indem~ity ' payme~~ programs are specified by the
current regulations goveriing special programs to be carried
out by ASCS and administered
by state and county committees.
An indemnity payment for milk is provided through the
regulations to
th~ fa~mer
who produces whole milk which is
removed from the commercial market from 1974 to 1977
pursuant to the direction of a public agency
because of the
91)
detection of pesticides in the milk.
th~s
program is limited in
th~
The applicability of
West Texas area and therefore
not covered ' by this paper.
The second indemnity payment program regulates payments
made to beekeepers who have sufferred a loss of bees caused
!lIP
by the use of pesticides.
F. Processor Wheat Marketing Regulations
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938
!UIl.
provides
that all persons engaged in the processing of wheat into
food products', shall, prior to marketing any products for
sale or
consu~Ption,
acquire domestic wheat marketing
certificates equivalent to the number of bushels contained
.
in such products.
100
These regulations are administered by the
A-4
ASCS with the Commodity Credit Corproation assisting through
.
the sale and purchase' of the domestic certificates.
101
, Certificates are not required for wheat whfch is processed
into a food product for use on the farm and 'not for salJ
102. "
or other disposition.
,
,I
,
'
Other exemptions include processing
lOS '
by educational 'institutions,
of a state agency,
lOt
prd~essed
and wheat
wheat processed by or for use
.
wheat processed for donation,
for non-commercial
use~.
106
lOT
It is
, the purpose of such certificates to enable producer~ on
, any farm for ,~hich certificaies are issued to receive, in
addition
t~
the other proceeds from the sale of wheat, an
,
amount equalt.o the va,l ue of the certificates.
1~
This
program was ' e'stablished because the Congress found that
unreasonably low prices 'of wheat to producers impaire'd their
purchasing
. p~w.r
for non-agricultural products and placed
the producers." in a position of serious disparity with other
.
industrial
.:
' ~roups.
disastriou~li ' low
lQ1S
That is, the purpose is to prevent
prices for wheat to the producers and tll"l!-
certificates regulating , them determine the price for whe'a"t ~III
'
used.
G, Export Wheat Marketing Certificate Regulations
A program for export wheat similar to th,a t just discussed
is provided for in 7 CFR§778. It is the purpose of this program to make the cost of the export marketing certificates
per bushel to the
e~porter
on a basis which makes the
nation's wheat generally competiti~e on the world market.
A-5
avOids
disru~tion
of world market
~rices,
and fulfill any
~,
applicable international obligations of the Un1ted States.
110
This program is not administered on the local level.
Its
immediate affect on the West Texas farmer is remotel
H.
A~peal
Regulations
The regulations contained in this part
11'
prescribe the
rules and procedures whereby a person may obtain reconsideration and reView of determinaiions made by the county
committee, state committee, or Deputy Administrator under
,
11&
most of the programs administered by the ASCS. "The
basic procedure for appealing committee determinations have
already been discussed.
deadlines
These regulations specify the
requriement for reconsideration and appeal
118
to the state "committee and Deputy Administrator. "
\
a~d
FOOTNOTES
1. 7 U.S.C. §§1281 - 14'07.
2. , 7 U.S.C. 11282.
3. Id.
4. 7 U.S.C. §§1341-1350a .
5. Upland cotton ;s defined as any cotton other than extralong staple cotton.
7 C.F.R. 722.404 (j) (1973).
6. Pub. L. 99-524, Title VI, §601 (1), Nov. 30, 1970,
84 Stat . 1371, as amended .
7. 7 U.S.C. ~ 1348-1350 st;ll apply to upland cotton.
8 . 7 U. S.C. §1350. ,
9. "Normal year's domestic consumption" defined in 7 U.S . C.
§ 1301 (11)( 8).
10. 7 U.S . C". :,§1350(a)
..
,. ;
'
11. Id.
12. 7 U.S.C. ~1350(b) .
13. 7 U.S.C.§1350(c) .
14. Id.
15 . 7 U.S . C. h350(e)(l). ,
16. I d.
17. I d.
18 . 7 U.S . C. ; §1350(e)(2).
.
.
,
19. I d.
20 . 7 U.S . C.11350(e)(3).
21. 7 u.S.C . h350(f) .
22. 7 C.F.R . 722.407
"
(1~73).
23. 7 C.F.R '....."'7.. .3 (1974) ;
I
24. 7 C.F.R. 7.12 (1974).
,
2S . 7 C. F. R. 7.S (1974 ).
26. 7 C. F. R. 'L12 (1974 ).
27. Id .
28. 7 C.F.R . 7 ~ IS (1974 ),
29. 7 C.F.R . 7.1S(b} (1974 ).
30. 7 C.F.R. 7: lS(g} (.1974).
31 . 7 C.F . R. }. IS (1) (1974 ).
32. 7 C. F.R ; :7 . 27 (a) (1974).
33 . 7 C. F. R. 7.27 (c) (1974 >.
34. 7 C.F . R. 7.14a(a) ( 1974).
3S. 7 C.F.R. 7.20(1974) .
36. Pub. L. 99-524. Title VI, §601(l). Nov. 30. 1970. 84
Stat.
13n.
as amended by Pub. L. 93-86. h
(19)(A) •
Aug . 10. 1973. 87 Stat. 233.
37 . Information taken
fr~~
personal
int~rview
with Mr. Walter
. Wells. Executive Director of the Lubbock County ASCS office.
Feb. 24.1975.
'
38. 7 U.S.C , .§l444(e)(2)(I)
and (2).
"
.
39 . 7 U. S.C . §1444(e)(3).
40. Id .
41. Id .
· 42. 7 U.S.C.h444 (e)(2).
43. III.
44. I d .
4S. See Westfall. Agricultural Allotments as Property. 79
Harv. L.R. ll80. , ll88 (1966).
46.
7
u. S. C.
h344b.
,
\
ft7. 334 F.2d 592,599 (5th
, Ci r '. 1964) ~
,
48. I d.
49. 7 U.S.C. h344b(i).
,
50. 7 U.S.C. §1344b(a) .
:
51. 7 C.F.R. 722 . 417 (1973).
,
52. I d.
53. I d.
54. 7 U.S.C . h344b( a) .
55. 7 C.F.R . :722.417 (1973).
56.7 C.F.R. 722.418 (1973).
57.324 f. SupP.1211 (S.D. Tex. 1971).
58. See 7 U.S '.C. h344b notes.
Even though 7 C.F.R. 722.418
has since been added, the court had the proposed
gegulation available and considered the regulation,
stating its adoption would not change its application
of thelaw.
59. 324 F. Supp. 1271, 1277 (S.D.Tex. 1971) •
,
60. 7 U.S.C. §l344(b) .
61. 7 U.S . C. ' §1344b(d). '
62. 7 U.S.C. ' h379 .
63 . 7 C.F.R. 719.3(b)(1973).
64. 7 C.F.R . 719 . 4(a) (1973).
, 65 . 7 C. F. R; 719.4(e) (1973).
66. 7 C. F. R. 719 .4 (f) (1973) .
67. 7 U.S.C. 51363
68. ] C.F.R. 711.3(f)(I)(1973).
69.7 U.S.C. h363.
70. 245 F.2d 145 (5th Cir. 1957).
\\
71. 7 C.F.R. 711.13(b) '(1973).
72. McDougald
V.
Local Review Committee, 149 F. Supp. 405
(E. D. N • C. '196 5) ,
73. Id.
"
74.7 C.F.R . 711.15 (1973).
75. Fulford
V.
Forman, supra note 70.
76. Comment, Appealing Agricultural Allotments, 41 Miss. L.J.
f21, 428(1970).
77. 7 C.F.R. 711.21(e).
78. 285 F.Supp. 578 (E.D.N.C.1968).
79. For an argument to the contrary see Comment. Appealing
Agricultural
80. Hawkins
V.
Allotments,~a
note 76.
State Agriculture Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Committee, 149 F. Supp. 681 (S.D.Tex. 1957).
81. Supra, note 76.
82. Id.
83. 7
U.S.C.~1365.
84. lEI.
85. Id.
86. Weir
V.
United States. 310 F.2d 149 (8th Cir.1962).
87. United States v. Kissinger. 250 F.2d 940 (3d Cir.1957).
88. Mills v. Toppert. 185F. Supp. 160. 164 (S.D.Il1. 1960).
89. 7 U.S.C. h366
90. I d.
91. Garvey v. F'reeman. 397 F.2d 600 (9th Clr. 1968).
92. 7 U.S.C . ~1366.
93.7 C.F . R. 7'51.102 (1974/).
94. 16 U.S.C. h311
95 . 7 C.F.R . 752.1 (1974).
96. 7 C.F .R. 752 . 4 (1974).
91. 7 C. F.R. 760.2(h) (1974).
98.7 C.F.R. 760.103(a) (1974).
99. 7 U . S.C . ~1379a-j (1974).
100. 7 C.F.R . .777.1 (1974).
o
10i. 7 C.F.R. 777.2 (1974) .
102. 7 C.F.R. '777.5(b)(I)(1974).
o'
103. 7 C.F . R. 777.5(b)(3)(1974).
104. 7 C. F.R . 777.5(b)(4)(1974).
105 . 7 C.F . R. 777.5(b)(5)(1974).
106. 7 t.F.R. 777.5(b)(6)(1974). '
1071 7 U.S.C.§1379(b)(a).
108. 7 U.S.C.
~1379(a)
109 . Id.
110. 7 C. F. R. 778.1 (1974).
111. 7 C. F . R. 77.8 . 2 (1974).
112. 7 C.F.R. ' 780 . 1 (1974).
113 . I d.