Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of conservation in United States’ agricultural policy from the Dust Bowl to today: A critical assessment

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Historical evidence shows that environmental issues have been secondary to United States’ agricultural policy since the first farm bill in 1933. The farm sector has undergone massive changes in technology and farming practices, but the environmental problems it causes have remained ancillary to productivist goals. Agri-environmental policy has continued to rely on subsidies and voluntary farmer participation, while combining environmental objectives with price and income support aims. The faith of agri-environmental programs is largely determined by what is desirable for safety net purposes, and in times of high crop and livestock prices and increased environmental pressures conservation is particularly underfunded. Additionally, monitoring and program assessment are poorly structured. This is particularly concerning today given the threats of climate change and agriculture’s contribution to it. A major rethinking of these taxpayer-funded programs is necessary to improve their effectiveness. Programs should focus on environmental outcomes and monitoring and assessment should be strengthened.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the United States, policies related to environmental problems caused by agriculture are generally referred to as conservation measures. In the rest of the world, they are more commonly referred to as agri-environmental policies. I will use both terms interchangeably.

  2. An example of this is the 1950s fire ant eradication campaign. USDA was able to ratchet its response to pests and move from control to eradication thanks to more aggressive technology to which it had contributed itself. Millions of dollars were spent in the campaign, despite concerns for fish and wildlife from other federal agencies and environmental groups. Rachel Carson discussed this episode in her “Silent Spring” book. In it, she “implied that the chemical industry had become the USDA's major constituency” (Lear 1992). USDA’s negative response to the book illustrates how a pro-agribusiness productivist culture dominated the agency (Daniel 1990).

  3. Corn ethanol subsidies ended in 2011.

References

  • Atwood, J.D., L. Knight, A. Cattaneo, and P.F. Smith. 2003. Benefit cost analysis of the 2002 EQIP farm bill provisions. Montreal: American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G. L., W. D. Rasmussen, W. Vivian, and J. M. Porter. 1963. Century of service: the first 100 years of the United States Department of Agriculture. Centennial Committee, US Department of Agriculture.

  • Barker, K.E. 1984. The new federalism: Time for states to pull the plow in soil conservation. SDL Rev 30: 546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basche, A., K. Tully, N.L. Álvarez-Berríos, J. Reyes, L. Lengnick, T. Brown, J.M. Moore, R.E. Schattman, L.K. Johnson, and G. Roesch-McNally. 2020a. Evaluating the untapped potential of U.S. conservation investments to improve soil and environmental health. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4: 48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batie, S.S. 1985. Soil conservation in the 1980s: A historical perspective. Agricultural History 59: 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batie, S.S. 1999. Green payments as foreshadowed by EQIP. Staff Paper 99–45. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI.

  • Bellemare, M.F., and N. Carnes. 2015. Why do members of congress support agricultural protection? Food Policy 50: 20–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigelow, D., R. Claassen, D. Hellerstein, V. Breneman, R. Williams, and C. You. 2020. The fate of land in expiring conservation reserve program contracts, 2013–2016. EIB-215. US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.

  • Boling, T. 2010. Making the connection: NEPA processes for national environmental policy. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 32: 313–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, D.E., W.D. Rasmussen, and G.L. Baker. 1984. History of agricultural price-support and adjustment programs, 1933–84: Background for 1985 Farm Legislation. Agricultural Information Bulletin. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service.

  • Braden, J.B., and D.L. Uchtmann. 1982. Soil conservation programs amidst faltering environmental commitments and the new federalism. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 10: 639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briske, D.D., B.T. Bestelmeyer, J.R. Brown, M.W. Brunson, T.L. Thurow, and J.A. Tanaka. 2017. Assessment of USDA-NRCS rangeland conservation programs: Recommendation for an evidence-based conservation platform. Ecological Applications 27: 94–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buttel, F.H. 2006. Sustaining the unsustainable: agro-food systems and environment in the modern world. In P.J. Cloke, P. Mooney, and T. Marsden, eds. Handbook of rural studies. Sage, pp 213–229

  • Claassen, R., M. Bowman, V. Breneman, T. Wade, R. Williams, J. Fooks, L. Hansen, R. Iovanna, and C. Loesch. 2017. Conservation Compliance: How farmer incentives are changing in the crop insurance era economic research report no. 234. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

  • Claassen, R., A. Cattaneo, and R. Johansson. 2008. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics 65: 737–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, W.W. 1979. The development of American agriculture: A historical analysis. U of Minnesota Press.

  • Copeland, C. 2010. Animal waste and water quality: EPA regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) CRS Report RL31851 Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress Washington, DC.

  • Coppess, J. 2018. The fault lines of farm policy: A legislative and political history of the farm bill. California: University of Nebraska Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, C., A. Hug, and N. Bruzelius. 2011. Losing ground. Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, C.A. 2007. Recovering the promise of CSP. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62: 22A-23A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel, P. 1990. A rogue bureaucracy: The USDA fire ant campaign of the late 1950s. Agricultural History 64: 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, J.H. 2004. Factory fields: Agricultural practices, polluted water and hypoxic oceans. Great Plains Natural Resources and Geography Journal 9: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibden, J., C. Potter, and C. Cocklin. 2009. Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: Productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, S.D., and C.J. Kucharik. 2008. Corn-based ethanol production compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi River. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 4513–4518.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Easter, K.W. 1969. Changing the ACP investment. Land Economics 45: 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65: 663–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2020a. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030—Bringing nature back into our lives (COM(2020)380 final of 20 May 2020).

  • European Commission. 2020b. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system (COM(2020) 381 final of 20 May 2020).

  • Feindt, P.H. 2010. Policy-learning and environmental policy integration in the Common Agricultural Policy, 1973–2003. Public Administration 88: 296–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAO, U. 1972. Greater conservation benefits could be attained under the Rural Environmental Assistance program. Report to the Congress B-114833. Washington, DC.

  • GAO, U. 1983. Agriculture's soil conservation programs miss full potential in the fight against soil erosion GAO-RCED 84–48.

  • Gardner, B.L. 1992. Changing economic perspectives on the farm problem. Journal of Economic Literature 30: 62–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., E. Einsiedel, S. Priest, T. Ten Eyck, N. Allum, and H. Torgersen. 2001. Troubled waters: the Atlantic divide on biotechnology policy. In G. Gaskell and M. Bauer, eds. Biotechnology 1996–2000: The Years of Controversy Science Museum, London pp 96–115.

  • Ghosh, R. 2019. Appetite for imprecision: The role of bureaucracy in implementing a pay-for-performance program. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 109: 1208–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakas, K., and J.D. Kaplan. 2005. Policy design and conservation compliance on highly erodible lands. Land Economics 81: 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gierlinger, S., and F. Krausmann. 2012. The physical economy of the United States of America. Journal of Industrial Ecology 16: 365–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giglio, J.N. 1987. New frontier agricultural policy: The commodity side, 1961–1963. Agricultural History 61: 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glauber, J. W., and A. Effland. 2016. United States agricultural policy: Its evolution and impact. The International Food Policy Research Institute.

  • Glibert, P.M. 2020. From hogs to HABs: Impacts of industrial farming in the US on nitrogen and phosphorus and greenhouse gas pollution. Biogeochemistry 150: 139–180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. de Groot, P.L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellerstein, D. 2010. Challenges facing USDA’s conservation reserve program. Amber Waves 8: 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, D., D.J. Lawrence, P.J. Lawrence, and P.F. Smith. 2002. Water quality in the natural resources conservation service: An historical overview. Agricultural History 76: 289–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffpauir, J. 2009. The environmental impact of commodity subsidies: NEPA and the farm bill. Fordham Environmental Law Review 20: 233–265.

  • Höhne, N., H. Blum, J. Fuglestvedt, R.B. Skeie, A. Kurosawa, G. Hu, J. Lowe, L. Gohar, B. Matthews, A.C. Nioac de Salles, and C. Ellermann. 2011. Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty. Climatic Change 106: 359–391.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, A., D. Bennett, and S. Secchi. 2020. Complying with conservation compliance? An assessment of recent evidence in the US Corn Belt. Environmental Research Letters 15: 084035.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth, R.W., A. Sharpley, and D. Walker. 2002. Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: Implications for achieving coastal water quality goals. Estuaries 25: 656–676.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, S.H. 2021. Sustainable agriculture in the U.S. vs. the EU. CSA News 66: 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery, B., and I. Bowler. 2014. From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. The geography of rural change. Routledge, pp 57–84.

  • Ingraham, P.W. 1996. Reinventing the American federal government: Reform redux or real change? Public Administration 74: 453–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J.Y. 2003. A new farm bill: Comparing the 2002 law with previous law and house and senate bills congressional research service report RL31704. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.

  • Kassel, K., and R. M. Morrison. 2020. Selected charts from Ag and food statistics: charting the essentials. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.

  • Kess, S. 2022. Tax changes in the inflation reduction act of 2022. The CPA Journal 92: 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacic, D.A., M.B. David, L.E. Gentry, K.M. Starks, and R.A. Cooke. 2000. Effectiveness of constructed wetlands in reducing nitrogen and phosphorus export from agricultural tile drainage. Journal of Environmental Quality 29: 1262–1274.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, R.A., and S.S. Batie. 1985. Cross compliance concepts in agricultural programs: The new deal to the present. Agricultural History 59: 307–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Seur, C.L., and A.D. Abelkop. 2010. Forty years after NEPA’s enactment, it is time for a comprehensive farm bill environmental impact statement. Harvard Law & Policy Review 4: 201.

  • Lark, T.J., N.P. Hendricks, A. Smith, N. Pates, S.A. Spawn-Lee, M. Bougie, E.G. Booth, C.J. Kucharik, and H.K. Gibbs. 2022. Environmental outcomes of the US renewable fuel standard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119: e2101084119.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lear, L.J. 1992. Bombshell in beltsville: The USDA and the challenge of “Silent Spring”. Agricultural History 66: 151–170.

  • Lebergott, S. 1966. Labor force and employment, 1800–1960. In D.S. Brady, ed. Output, employment, and productivity in the United States after 1800. NBER, pp 117–204

  • Leitch, J.A., and L.E. Danielson. 1979. Social, economic, and institutional incentives to drain or preserve prairie wetlands. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics University of Minnesota.

  • Levins, R.A., and W.W. Cochrane. 1996. The treadmill revisited. Land Economics 72: 550–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luther, L. 2005. The national environmental policy act: Background and implementation, RL33152. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallin, M.A., M.R. McIver, A.R. Robuck, and A.K. Dickens. 2015. Industrial swine and poultry production causes chronic nutrient and fecal microbial stream pollution. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 226: 1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, L.A. 1986. A historical essay on the conservation provisions of the 1985 farm bill: sodbusting, swampbusting, and the conservation reserve. Kansas Law Review 34: 48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, L.V. 1982. Farm exports and soil conservation. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 34: 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorvie, M.R., and C.L. Lant. 1993. Drainage district formation and the loss of midwestern wetlands, 1850–1930. Agricultural History 67: 13–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, S. A., and S. A. Halbrook. 2020. Policy Spotlight: Conservation and Environmental Policy. In S.A. Mercier and S.A. Halbrook, eds. Agricultural Policy of the United States: Historic Foundations and 21st Century Issues. Springer International Publishing, pp 213–227.

  • Miranowski, J. A., and K. Reichelderfer. 1985. Resource conservation programs in the farm policy arena. Agricultural-food policy review: commodity programs perspectives. Agricultural Economic Report 530. USDA Economic Research Service, pp 202–221.

  • Mishra, A.K., and A.R. Khanal. 2013. Is participation in agri-environmental programs affected by liquidity and solvency? Land Use Policy 35: 163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestle, M. 2019. The trump administration’s destruction of the economic research service: An American tragedy. World Nutrition 10: 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusser, S.M., and J.J. Goebel. 1997. The national resources inventory: A long-term multi-resource monitoring programme. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 4: 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, C.T., F. Llacuna, and M. Lisenbigler. 1995. Conservation Reserve Program: Enrollment Statistics for Signup Periods 1–12 and Fiscal Years 1986–1993.

  • Pavelis, G.A. 1987. Farm drainage in the United States: History, status, and prospects. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

  • Pavelis, G.A., D. Helms, and S. Stalcup. 2011. Soil and water conservation expenditures by USDA agencies, 1935–2010 Historical Insights No. 10. USDA NRCS.

  • Pe’er, G., Y. Zinngrebe, F. Moreira, C. Sirami, S. Schindler, R. Müller, V. Bontzorlos, D. Clough, P. Bezák, and A. Bonn. 2019. A greener path for the EU common agricultural policy. Science 365: 449–451.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pe’er, G., and S. Lakner. 2020. The EU’s common agricultural policy could be spent much more efficiently to address challenges for farmers, climate, and biodiversity. One Earth 3: 173–175.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C.A., and S.A. Wolf. 2014. Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: Disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation? Agriculture and Human Values 31: 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, A. 2015. Ecological modernization in U.S. agri-environmental programs: Trends in the 2014 Farm Bill. Land Use Policy 47: 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M.J., and R.N. Lubowski. 2007. Enduring impacts of land retirement policies: Evidence from the conservation reserve program. Land Economics 83: 516–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. 2002. Three questions for agriculture about the environment. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 17: 395–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechinger, A. 2022. New EWG analysis: Of $7.4B spent on two of USDA’s biggest conservation programs in recent years, very little went to ‘climate-smart’ agriculture. EWG.

  • Schnepf, M. 2012. Conservation compliance: A retrospective... and look ahead.

  • Scown, M.W., M.V. Brady, and K.A. Nicholas. 2020. Billions in misspent EU agricultural subsidies could support the sustainable development goals. One Earth 3: 237–250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi, S. 2023. What decades of policies aimed at agricultural water pollution can teach us about agricultural climate change mitigation: a US perspective. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7: 88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi, S., J. Tyndall, L.A. Schulte, and H. Asbiornsen. 2008. High crop prices and conservation-Raising the stakes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63: 68A-73A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheingate, A., A. Scatterday, B. Martin, and K. Nachman. 2017. Post-exceptionalism and corporate interests in US agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy 24: 1641–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddi, M. 2020. The European Green Deal: Asseasing its current state and future implementation. UPI REPORT 114.

  • Sneeringer, S. 2009. Does animal feeding operation pollution hurt public health? A national longitudinal study of health externalities identified by geographic shifts in livestock production. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91: 124–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2006. Final Report from the blue ribbon panel conducting an external review of the US Department of Agriculture Conservation Effects Assessment Project. Soil and Water Conservation Society Ankeny, IA.

  • Stets, E.G., L.A. Sprague, G.P. Oelsner, H.M. Johnson, J.C. Murphy, K. Ryberg, A.V. Vecchia, R.E. Zuellig, J.A. Falcone, and M.L. Riskin. 2020. Landscape drivers of dynamic change in water quality of U.S. Rivers. Environmental Science & Technology 54: 4336–4343.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. 2010. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues Congressional Research Service Report R40197 Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.

  • Stubbs, M. 2016. Conservation Compliance and U.S. Farm Policy Congressional Research Service Report R42459. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.

  • Stubbs, M. 2019. Agricultural Conservation in the 2018 Farm Bill Congressional Research Service Report R45698. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.

  • Talbot, R.B. 1963. The USDA embarks on its second century of service. Journal of Farm Economics 45: 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2023. Gross domestic product (implicit price deflator) [A191RD3A086NBEA]. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

  • US BLS. 2013. Percent of Employment in Agriculture in the United States (DISCONTINUED) [USAPEMANA] 1970–2010. In FRED Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

  • US Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2022. Table 6.5D. Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Industry.

  • US GAO. 2003. Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands GAO-03-418. Washington, DC.

  • US GAO. 2006. Conservation Security Program: Despite Cost Controls, Improved USDA Management Is Needed to Ensure Proper Payments and Reduce Duplication with Other Programs GAO-06-312. Washington, DC.

  • US GAO. 2007. Agricultural Conservation: Farm Program Payments Are an Important Factor in Landowners’ Decisions to Convert Grassland to Cropland GAO-07-1054. Washington, DC.

  • US GAO. 2017. Agricultural Conservation: USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program Could Be Improved to Optimize Benefits GAO-17-225. Washington, DC.

  • USDA. 1980. Soil and water resources conservation act, appraisal, part II. Washington, DC.

  • USDA. 2022a. 2017 National resources inventory. Washington, DC: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. 2022b. Biden-Harris Administration Announces Availability of Inflation Reduction Act Funding for Climate-Smart Agriculture Nationwide Press Release No. 0033.23. Washington, DC.

  • USDA. 2022c. USDA Offers Expanded Conservation Program Opportunities to Support Climate Smart Agriculture in 2022 Press Release No. 0005.22. Washington, DC.

  • USDA ASCS. 1973. Rural environmental conservation program: Environmental impact statement, Washington, DC.

  • USDA ASCS. 1975. Agricultural conservation program: Environmental impact statement. Washington, DC.

  • USDA ASCS. 1980. Conservation from east to west: A report on the 1979 Agricultural Conservation Program, Washington, DC.

  • USDA ERS. 1997. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996–97. Agricultural Handbook No. 712. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • USDA ERS 2023a. Conservation programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA ERS 2023b. Government payments by program. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA FSA. 2019. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Conservation Reserve Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • USDA FSA. 2021. CRP Enrollment and Rental Payments by County, 1986–2020. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • USDA FSA. 2022. Conservation Reserve Program Monthly Summary December 2022. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • USDA NASS. 2022. Crop Values Annual Summary 1985–2021. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

  • USDA NASS, and US Bureau of the Census. U.S. Censuses of Agriculture 1840–2017. Washington, DC.

  • USDA NRCS. 2020a. Conservation Stewardship Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment Washington, DC.

  • USDA NRCS. 2020b. Environmental Quality Incentives Program Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC.

  • USDA NRCS. 2022. 2017 National Resources Inventory - Cropland Soil Erosion trends.

  • USDA OIG. 2014a. Environmental Quality Incentives Program Audit Report 10601-0001-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC.

  • USDA OIG. 2014b. NRCS Conservation Easement Compliance Audit Report 10601-0002-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC.

  • USDA OIG. 2016a. USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Violations Audit Report 50601-0005-31. U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC.

  • USDA OIG. 2016b. USDA Monitoring of Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation Violations Interim Report 50601-0005-31(1). U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General, Washington, DC.

  • USEPA. 2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2020, EPA 430-R-22-003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

  • Wax, E., and E. Anderson. 2021. The transatlantic relationship descends into a food fight. Politico.

  • Weis, T. 2010. The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. Journal of Agrarian Change 10: 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, B.M., P. Liggit, D.L. Clemans, and S.N. Francoeur. 2011. Antibiotic resistance, gene transfer, and water quality patterns observed in waterways near CAFO farms and wastewater treatment facilities. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 217: 473–489.

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G.A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism … and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26: 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S.A. 2017. Accountability, rationality, and politics: Critical analysis of agri-environmental policy reform in the United States. In A. Bonanno and S.A. Wolf, eds. Resistance to the Neoliberal Agri-Food Regime, 50–63. Routledge.

  • Wu, S., B.K. Goodwin, and K. Coble. 2020. Moral hazard and subsidized crop insurance. Agricultural Economics 51: 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zulauf, C., N. Paulson, K. Swanson, and G. Schnitkey. 2022. Conservation reserve program’s evolving mission. Farmdoc Daily 12: 486.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thoughtful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geographical and Sustainability Sciences, University of Iowa, 302 Jessup Hall, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA

    Silvia Secchi

Authors
  1. Silvia Secchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Secchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Secchi, S. The role of conservation in United States’ agricultural policy from the Dust Bowl to today: A critical assessment. Ambio 53, 421–434 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01949-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01949-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation