A publication of the Agricultural & Applied The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues Economics Association 3rd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) Is America Running Out of Farmland? Paul D. Gottlieb JEL Classifications: Q15, Q39, R12, R14 Keywords: Farmland Availability, Farmland Preservation, Nonrenewable Resources, Urban Development, Urban Sprawl

In 1981, the inter-agency National Agricultural Lands otherwise have been developed or (2) it adds previously Study (USDA and CEQ, 1981) triggered a vigorous debate developed land, such as distressed properties in central cit- about the disappearance of American farmland. Although ies, to the agricultural land base and proves that farming the dire predictions of the 1981 study—it projected a need can take place efficiently there. for 77 million additional agricultural acres by the year State and local farmland preservation programs, as well 2000—did not come true, a recent article by Francis et al. as the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (2012), shows that the more alarmist view about farmland of 1996, were designed largely to protect farmland resourc- that was common in the 1970s and 1980s is alive and well. es from urban encroachment, following the call to action Francis and his co-authors argue that we face farmland of the 1981 agricultural lands study. What has been learned challenges today that we did not have to deal with 40 years about the relationship between urban expansion and long- ago. Although they ignore some reasons for optimism, such run farmland availability in the United States? Has the as increases in yields from genetically-modified seeds, there threat posed by development changed over the last thirty is little doubt that most 21st century trends affecting the years? The short answer is that the threat to America’s ag- long-run availability of farmland are troubling ones. A list ricultural land base from development remains long-term of such trends would include global demand side pressures- and speculative rather than urgent. Where domestic food -international development and greater consumption of supply is concerned, issues like water supply and soil ero- land-intensive meat products and the perpetual concern sion are more pressing. Agricultural markets continue to over global population growth—and global supply side be characterized by long distance shipping, while the price pressures—environmental degradation, climate change, al- and use of suburban parcels is determined today by local ternative use of land for biofuels, and diminishing returns factors, especially the demand for urban uses. from traditional cross-breeding technologies. Regarding None of this is to say that state and federal policy mak- urbanization, the threats of sprawl continue with its poten- ers should not plan for extreme contingencies, like those tial to pave over especially productive farmland that is lo- related to climate change or a sharp increase in transporta- cated near sites of original colonial settlement with favored tion costs. State and local policy makers, meanwhile, will floodplains and well-watered, flat soils near water transpor- continue to respond to local voter demands for open space, tation. The local food movement has brought new oppor- sprawl control, and maintenance of a land reserve for local tunities for farming that are close to, and in some cases agriculture. entirely within, urbanized areas. This social trend was not foreseen at the time of the 1981 Agricultural Lands Study. Urbanization and Prime Farmland It offers some hope for the preservation of high-quality ag- ricultural land, provided that: (1) it allows farmers to out- The most commonly used definition of high quality -ag bid developers for at least some urban parcels that would ricultural land in the United States is the prime farmland

©1999–2015 CHOICES. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced or electronically distributed as long as attribution to Choices and the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association is maintained. Choices subscriptions are free and can be obtained through http://www.choicesmagazine.org.

1 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) AAEA-0715-102 category of the U.S. Department of Agri- Although the prime farmland des- observed large differences, however, culture’s Natural Resources Conservation ignation is widely used to measure in the co-location of prime farmland Service (NRCS). Prime farmland is de- land that deserves the highest-priority and urban settlement across U.S. cen- fined by the NRCS as land that “has the protection, it should be remembered sus regions. This means that the loss of combination of soil properties, growing that land classifications are not im- prime farmland to urbanization could season, and moisture supply needed to mutable—poorer land can become be far worse in New Jersey than, say, produce sustained high yields of crops in “prime” when irrigated— and there is Georgia—even if population growth an economic manner if it is treated and considerable local and regional varia- rates were the same. Of course, state managed according to acceptable farm- tion within the prime category. population growth rates are not the ing methods” (USDA, 2014). By this Vining, Plaut, and Bieri (1977) same. This fact must also be taken definition, 23% of the non-federal open confirmed that prime farmland was into account when analyzing—or land in the continental United States disproportionately located in or near forecasting—the loss of prime farm- qualified as prime farmland in 2010, the nation’s largest metropolitan ar- land in different parts of the country. whether or not it was used to grow crops eas, although they described the re- The 2010 National Resources In- (USDA and ISU, 2013). lationship as “modest.” These authors ventory (NRI) of the NRCS (USDA and ISU, 2013) allows a fairly precise and updated estimate of the rate of Table 1. Decline of nonfederal land currently in or available for agriculture: loss of various types of land due to Prime farmland, all rural land, and land not forested urbanization, because it reports the Percentage decline in land area (10-year average amount of each undeveloped land 1982-2010) type remaining in each survey year Percentage of Prime Rural open Non-forested (Table 1). The data on remaining usable open farmland land open land rural acres are available for each of land that is the lower 48 states for seven years be- prime farmland tween 1982 and 2010. The first row Continental United States 23.3% -1.6% -1.3% -1.8% of Table 1 reports data for the entire Mid-Atlantic region United States. Because local condi- New Jersey 22.5% -10.8% -8.0% -13.7% tions vary widely, the remaining rows Pennsylvania 14.8% -4.5% -2.4% -6.7% report data on a set of representative states from different census regions Great Lakes region throughout the United States. Ohio 52.8% -2.4% -2.1% -3.0% The first column of Table 1 shows Michigan 26.1% -2.2% -1.8% -4.0% the percentage of undeveloped, non- Southeast region federal land in each state that was Alabama 22.4% -3.0% -1.8% -6.3% characterized as NRCS prime farm- land in 2010. The second column Georgia 23.7% -2.6% -2.9% -9.2% shows the percentage decline in Plains region prime farmland in each state between Iowa 55.1% -0.4% -0.4% -0.4% 1982 and 2010. The third column South 14.6% -0.7% -0.2% -0.2% shows the percentage decline in avail- Dakota able rural acres of all types, including Southwest region forested, that could be used to raise food or livestock if needed. Arizona 1.6% -14.2% -0.8% -0.5% New Mexico 0.3% -11.5% -0.2% -0.3% Northeast states have seen much of their farmland revert to forest over Mountain region the last century; there is no reason Idaho 16.8% -3.1% -0.8% -1.0% why we could not reclaim some of this Pacific region land for food production if necessary. California 12.2% -4.7% -2.5% -3.0% Having said that, it must also be ac- knowledged that a significant portion Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010 National Resources Inventory, tables 2, 12. of today’s forests are on steep slopes or Note: Usable open land is estimated as total rural land minus “other rural land.” Other rural land is either cov- are regarded as necessary for wildlife ered by rural structures or is rocky, swampy, or barren therefore not usable without significant improvement. preservation, carbon sequestration, or

2 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) other environmental services. For this that U.S. cities were mostly founded the soils sitting in the path of urban reason, Table 1’s final column shows on prime farmland, and are therefore development are no better suited to the percentage decline due to urban- expanding disproportionately onto agriculture than those in more remote ization of all non-forested, open rural this valuable resource. areas. land that existed in 1982. Together, The two exceptions to this rule Some studies have used historical the three right-hand columns in Table are instructive. In the case of Iowa, a trends like those reported in Table 1 1 span a range of subjective definitions significant percentage of the land in to create straight-line forecasts of such of open land that should be used, or both rural and metropolitan settings things as future agricultural acres per considered a reserve, for agricultural is designated prime, and population resident (Francis et al., 2012), or years production in the United States. growth has been modest. In the case of until complete build-out in a single The first thing to notice in Table Georgia, note that Atlanta, the state’s state (Hasse and Lathrop, 2008). As 1 is that prime farmland has been dominant growth engine, is one of authors Haase and Lathrop admit, declining more rapidly than all rural the first U.S. cities to be founded on straight-line projections of farmland land in every state except for Iowa and the basis of access to railroads rather loss are misleading. They assume, Georgia. This result supports the view than rivers. It follows that in Georgia, for example, that the price of an

A Prime Farmland Risk Profile for the 48 Contiguous States There are different ways to characterize the risk to farmland from urbaniza- Figure 3 addresses this third question—while ignoring the first two. It shows tion across states, and therefore where to prioritize preservation efforts. For states that rank above the median on the ratio of prime farmland decline to example, we might ask the question: Which states have a high percentage of decline of all rural land. These are states where prime farmland is dispropor- farmland that is designated prime? Other things equal, these are places where tionately in the path of development, viewed independently of the speed of a state-level preservation effort would have the greatest impact on prime that development. farmland, viewed nationally. Figure 1 shows that these states cluster in those parts of the country with sufficient rainfall, drained by large river systems, and with land that is relatively flat.

In the west, Figure 3 looks similar to Figure 2. Not only has the West been growing rapidly, it is also understandable that western cities were founded close to this region’s very limited stocks of prime farmland. But Figure 1 ignores the threat to this prime farmland that is generated by Comparing the Northeast and Southeast regions in Figures 2 and 3, however, urban growth. Figure 2, therefore, shows housing growth over the same leads to the conclusion that states losing prime farmland more rapidly than period for which farmland decline is measured in the 2013 NRCS report. This other rural lands—generally in the Northeast—are not the states that have map shows the well-known sunbelt/west coast growth phenomenon of the grown most rapidly, which are generally in the Southeast. States with a last several decades. It is silent, however, on whether growth in a given state is disproportionate quantity of prime farmland do not align neatly along north- eliminating prime farmland at a faster rate than other kinds of rural land. south lines which can be seen in Figure 1. Having said that, it is clear that northeastern states with slower long-term growth rates but greater relative risk to prime farmland have been more actively preserving land than their southern counterparts (AFT, 2005). Are there any states that rank high on all three farmland preservation risk factors? Yes, there are two: Texas and Alabama. Neither of these states made AFT’s 2005 roster of states authorizing and using state funds for preservation (AFT, 2005). A likely explanation is the South’s small-government political culture. Private foundations may be picking up some of the slack by purchas- ing conservation easements in these two states.

3 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) increasingly scarce resource does not alternative sources of food for an in- costs fell—consider, for example, rise, which would cause its rate of creasingly urbanized Northeast. This New Jersey, the “Garden State”. Al- depletion to slow. Similarly, while the particular safety net, however, ap- though relatively few fruits and vege- total stock of land with agricultural pears to have some holes in it. A tables sold in America’s supermarkets potential is necessarily reduced by de- quick look at maps published in the today are local, such high-value crops velopment, economic incentives cause 2013 NRI report shows that Iowa is could potentially be grown on the “forest, pasture, range, and other rural the continent’s epicenter for “sheet fringe of any metropolitan area even land [to be] converted to cropland,” and rill erosion” producing sediments as this fringe moves outward. thus reducing the net effect on food that flow down the Mississippi River. An important reason for this is supply (Heimlich and Krupa, 1994). This fact should remind us that prime that prime farmland is not strictly re- The existence of market forces means U.S. farmland can disappear for quired to grow fruits and vegetables. that straight-line forecasts are unlikely reasons other than urbanization. In In fact, as noted by a reviewer of this to come true; still, they can provide an Iowa, continued availability of topsoil article, high-value fruit and vegetable intuitive sense of the urgency of farm- is the chief threat; in Florida, inun- crops often require soil characteristics land loss in different locations. dation from rising sea levels might be that preclude a soil from the prime For the continental United States, considered, alongside urbanization. designation. Given the high water a straight-line projection technique In California, farms in the state’s content of these commodities, access suggests that prime agricultural land famed central valley could run out of to water for irrigation is a more im- would be completely eliminated in groundwater for irrigation long be- portant spatial resource than a partic- the year 2572, all rural land would be fore they are covered by homes. It fol- ular type of soil or access to adjacent gone in 2713, and non-forested rural lows that urbanization is far from the urban markets. California’s Central land would disappear in 2498. State- only thing to consider when thinking Valley, a global exporter of fruits and level exhaustion years range from as about the long-term availability of vegetables that is removed from the early as 2051 for Arizona’s small quan- this critical natural resource (Francis state’s largest cities, is now putting tity of prime farmland—a situation et al., 2012). this constraint to the test. that could potentially be improved if enough water could be found—to One False Concern Put to Rest Will Urban Sprawl Continue in dates beyond the year 4000 for vari- A fact sheet published by Ameri- North America? ous definitions of rural land in Iowa, can Farmland Trust (AFT) states that The U.S. Department of Hous- New Mexico, and South Dakota. 86% of the nation’s fruit and vegeta- ing and Urban Development (HUD) bles and 63% of its dairy products are Other build-out scenarios worth journal Cityscape recently commis- produced in areas “under the threat mentioning include California, sioned a set of essays on the ques- of development” (AFT, 2014b). The which would pave over its significant tion of whether Americans would clear implication of this statement stock of prime farmland by 2180; live more or less densely in the future is that these commodities can only and Georgia, which would run out of (HUD, 2013). A key question raised be grown on those prime agricul- open land before the end of the cur- by the authors was whether residential tural soils that are scheduled for early rent century—but only if its extensive preferences in North America would elimination as a result of urbanization forests were regarded as off limits for change with a continued increase in (Francis et al., 2012). growing crops. incomes. One scenario assumes that On the whole, Table 1 supports Even considering the slightly consumers will demand homes closer the findings of the many 1980s stud- greater amount of prime farmland to their jobs, with walkable neighbor- ies arguing that the sky is not falling that is near population centers, it is hoods and city amenities. A continu- due to urban sprawl—a conclusion incorrect to assume that fruits and ation of the historical trend toward that is even more emphatic when you vegetables can only be grown in ur- more personal open space in back consider what would happen to the ban fringe locations. The majority of and side yards, however, is also logi- price of agricultural land as it became prime farmland, as is true for all land, cal. Affluent homebuyers could even- increasingly scarce. The table does, remains nonmetropolitan. Regions tually split into high- and low-density however, raise interesting issues re- specializing in fruits and vegetables groups, based on personal consump- lated to local food supply versus ship- were established at a time when the tion preferences. transportation of heavy agricultural ment from afar. Other factors in this debate in- products was difficult. This led to pat- For example, by virtue of their clude the aging of the population, terns of proximity to urban areas that enormous stocks of prime farmland, leading to higher density housing; lack persisted even after transportation states like Ohio and Iowa are logical of funding for highway construction,

4 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) which will limit one important driver is already captured in today’s price, so together, there is no guarantee that of past decentralization; and crosscut- the development of such a parcel can- these programs serve the multiple de- ting preferences by modern industry not possibly be a problem. Working mands of residents as well as a formal for urban agglomeration on the one on its own, the market gets the right market for ecosystem services, or even hand, and telecommuting or back- answer. greater central planning, would. office development on the other. In- This argument would be sound Perhaps easier to deal with are terestingly, the possibility that high if land could move in a costless way those cases where misguided govern- food and agricultural land prices back and forth between urban and ment policies, not failures of the free might “push back” on the urban-rural rural uses in response to new mar- market, are to blame for the rapid pace boundary, leading to higher residen- ket information. The common as- at which we chew up our farmland. tial densities, is not mentioned in the sumption that urban development Why, for example, would anybody symposium issue. is irreversible, however, leads to an think that a zoning ordinance speci- In the aggregate, the Cityscape “option value” argument that tends fying a minimum residential lot size forecasts predict a slowed-down con- to support the preservationist point of five acres is a good thing? There is tinuation of sprawl in North Amer- of view. If too much land were de- one efficiency rationale for this wide- ica, with a lot of density variation veloped, advocates argue, we would spread restriction on housing choice and experimentation within metro- lose the option to use it as a cushion that only economists talk much about politan areas. Metropolitan areas will against global famine. The opposite (Hamilton, 1976; Fischel, 2001). But still be quite large and will, in some mistake—having insufficient land this rationale assumes a local property areas, bleed into each other. That be- for development because too much tax—something we could change if ing said, forecasts of urban densities is being cultivated—is both harder we wanted—and it is arguably out- and the overall urban footprint in to imagine and easier to reverse. Sure, weighed by a long list of inefficiencies the United States and other devel- some consumer satisfaction is lost by and inequities commonly associated oped countries vary widely. Ironically, constraining development today, but with large-lot zoning and its land- this is also true of forecasts of future isn’t food ultimately more essential to scape cognate, urban sprawl (White, cropland demand in North America life than an extra thousand square feet 1975; Levine, 2005; Rudel et al., under—and even without—consid- of home or lawn? 2011). erations of climate change (Schmitz A second economic rationale for It is noteworthy that farmland et al., 2014; Hertel, 2010). At some farmland preservation begins with preservation—especially if it contrib- level, then, we simply do not know the premise that development is utes to increased urban density and what our land use future will look characterized by numerous market contiguous development—is a poten- like, other than the safe bet that ur- failures today, leading to the conclu- tial solution for a range of efficiency ban land will constitute a small mi- sion that our urban landscapes sprawl and equity problems that have noth- nority of the continent’s land mass for inefficiently. Brueckner (2000) pro- ing to do with future food security. If many years to come. vides a nice summary of these market concerns about the future availability failures, without concluding that they of food create the political will for a Farmland Protection and Public are severe enough to justify massive more efficient, more compact city, Policy planning controls. One such failure, then these concerns may prove to be Even if you are not an economist, which might actually be the crucial a useful fiction. the market paradigm remains an im- one, is that there exists no private So what have preservation pro- portant starting point for thinking market in which citizens can purchase grams been doing since the 1980s to about farmland preservation policy. open space and amenity services slow the loss of farmland near met- Some economists and planners are from their farmer neighbors. Farm- ropolitan areas? According to figures perfectly happy with the land use ers therefore lack any incentive to compiled by AFT, state agencies and choices the market appears to be provide these services by postponing nonprofits have preserved more than making today (Gordon and Richard- development. Indeed, the 40-year- 1 million of the nation’s agricultural son, 1997; 2006). When an acre of old public market, in which taxes are acres nationwide, with the North- farmland is lost, these authors argue, used to purchase development rights eastern states and California un- it is because housing was the “best on farmland, can be viewed as a col- derstandably near the top of the list and highest use” for that parcel at that lective stand-in for this non-existent (AFT, 2014a). This figure amounts particular time. More specifically, the private market for local amenities. It to less than 1% of the total agri- foregone opportunity of using prime is supplemented by a private, non- cultural U.S. land base. While that farmland for agricultural production profit market for open space. Taken may sound miniscule, these mostly

5 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) state-driven programs typically target For More Information Gottlieb, P. D. 1999. “Do Economists prime soils lying in the path of rapid Have Anything to Contribute to American Farmland Trust (AFT). development. the Debate on Urban Sprawl (and 2005. Fact Sheet: Status of State Would Anybody Listen to Them There is certainly no guarantee Pace Programs. Washington, D.C., if they Did)?” Forum for Social that these programs solve the sprawl August. problem. Housing can continue to be Economics 28(2): 51-64. American Farmland Trust (AFT). built at low densities and can ‘leap- Hart, J.F. 2001. “Half a Century of 2014a. A National View of Agri- frog’ over the protected parcels. The Cropland Change.” Geographical cultural Easement Programs. Ac- achievement of local food and ameni- Review 91 (July): 525-543. cessed September 13, 2014 c. ty objectives demanded by voters, on Haase, J., and R. Lathrop. 2008. American Farmland Trust (AFT). the other hand, is likely. Fortunately, Tracking New Jersey’s Dynamic 2014b. Why Save Farmland? Fact the people who are most concerned Landscape: Urban Growth and Sheet accessed September 13, about such objectives are the ones Open Space Loss 1986-1995- 2014. Available online: http:// paying for preservation, aided by fed- 2002. New Brunswick, NJ: Grant www.farmland.org/news/media/ eral tax write-offs and a few modestly- F. Walton for Remote Sensing documents/AFTFactSheet.pdf. scaled programs of the USDA. and Spatial Analysis, Rutgers The federal government could, if Brueckner, J. 2000. “Urban Sprawl: A University. Diagnosis and Remedies.” Inter- it wanted, pump more money into Heimlich, R.E., and W. Anderson. national Regional Science Review this proven system. Aside from the 2001. Development at the Ur- 23(2): 160-171. general problem of fiscal austerity, ban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts this would require greater consen- Fischel, W. 2001. The Homevoter Hy- on Agriculture and Rural Land. sus among federal lawmakers on the pothesis: How Home Values Influ- Economic. USDA Economic Re- food security aspects of the problem. ence Local Government Taxation, search Service, Agricultural Eco- Alternatively, it would require greater School Finance, and Land-use Poli- nomic Report No. 803. Available bipartisan commitment to urban cies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ planning objectives at the federal University Press. media/536851/aer803_1_.pdf. level, through an agency like HUD. Fischel, W. 1982. “The Urbanization Neither appears likely any time soon. Heimlich, R.E., and K. Krupa. 1994. of Agricultural Land: A Review of “Changes in Land Quality Ac- Meanwhile, the recent consolidation the National Agricultural Lands of the Farm and Ranch Lands Pro- companying Urbanization in U.S. Study.” Land Economics 58 (May): Fast-Growth Counties.” Journal tection Program into a broader Agri- 236–59. cultural Conservation Easement Pro- of Soil and Water Conservation 49 gram has injected some uncertainty Francis, C. A., T. Hansen, A. Fox, (4): 367-374 into the process of obtaining federal P. Hesje, H. Nelson, A. Lawseth, Hertel, T. 2010. “The Global Sup- grants for the purchase of easements and A. English. 2012. “Farmland ply and Demand for Agricultural on working farms having little or no Conversion to Non-Agricultural Land in 2050: A Perfect Storm in environmental significance. Uses in the U.S. and Canada: the Making?” Working paper No. Current Impacts and Concerns 63, Global Trade Analysis Project, If the age of sprawl is over, how- for the Future.” International ever, then farmland preservation ac- Department of Agricultural Eco- Journal of Agricultural Sustainabil- nomics, Purdue University. tivists can turn their attention to the ity 10 (1): 8–24. neglected subject of managing our Hamilton, B. 1976. “Capitalization half-preserved, half-developed exur- Gordon, P., and H. Richardson. of Interjurisdictional Differences ban mosaic for maximum efficiency 1997. “Are Compact Cities a De- in Local Tax Prices.” American in the production of food, fiber, and sirable Planning Goal?” Journal of Economic Review 66: 743–753. the American Planning Association amenities. This is likely to be easier Levine, J. 2005. Zoned Out. Wash- 63 (1): 95 – 106. than taking the long view on land ington, D.C.: Resources for the to minimize downside risks. That is Gordon, P., and H. Richardson. 2006. Future. something that the political establish- “Farmland Preservation and Eco- Platt, R. 1985. “The Farmland Con- ment finds difficult under the best of logical Footprints: A Critique.” version Debate: NALS and Be- circumstances. Markets and Planning 1 (1). Avail- yond.” The Professional Geographer able online: http://www–pam. 37 (4): 433–42. usc.edu/volume1/v1i1a2s1.html.

6 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3) Rudel, T., K. O’Neill, P.D. Gottlieb, Vining, D. R., T. Plaut, and K. Bieri. M. McDermott, and C. Hatfield. 1977. “Urban Encroachment 2011. From Middle to Upper on Prime Agricultural Land in Class Sprawl? Land Use Controls the United States.” International and Changing Patterns of Real Regional Science Review 2 (2): Estate Development in North- 143–56. ern New Jersey. Annals of the As- White, M. 1975. “Fiscal Zoning in sociation of American Geographers Fragmented Metropolitan Areas.” 101(3): 1-16. In E. Mills and W. Oates, eds. Fis- Schmitz, C., H. van Meijl, P. Kyle, G. cal Zoning and Land Use Controls, Nelson, S. Fujimori, A. Gurgel, P. pp 31-100. Lexington, MA: Lex- Havlik, E. Heyhoe, D. M. d’Croz, ington Books. A. Popp, R. Sands, A. Tabeau, D. van der Mensbrugghe, M. von Paul D. Gottlieb (Gottlieb@aesop. Lampe, M. Wise, E. Blanc, T. rutgers.edu) is Associate Professor, De- Hasegawa, A. Kavallari, and H. partment of Agricultural, Food, and Valin. 2014. “Land-Use Change Resource Economics, Rutgers University, Trajectories Up to 2050: Insights New Brunswick, NJ. from a Global Agro-Economic Model Comparison.” Agricultural This study was funded by a contract Economics 45 (1): 69–84. from the Northeast Regional Center for Solomon, B. 1984. “Farmland Pro- Rural Development, headquartered at tection: A Case of Quality Not Pennsylvania State University. NIFA Quantity.” Land Use Policy 1 (4): Grant No. 2012-70002-19385 357–66. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and President’s Coun- cil on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. National Agricul- tural Lands Study. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Iowa State Univer- sity (ISU). 2013. 2010 National Resources Inventory. Natural Re- sources Conservation Service (NRCS), Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. National Soil Sur- vey Handbook, Part 662. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.. Available online: http://www.nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/de- tail/national/nedc/training/ soil/?cid=nrcs142p2_054226U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2013. “Point of Contention: A Denser Future?” Cityscape 15 (3): 171-207.

7 CHOICES 3nd Quarter 2015 • 30(3)