By Sam Herring, ASU sustainable food systems graduate student
At Model USDA 2026, the urban agriculture scenario brought together a plethora of stakeholders with differing priorities, such as real estate developers pursuing expansion and nonprofit and university leaders working toward equitable, food-centered community development. The group’s task to develop policy supporting the national development of urban agriculture was borne out of preparedness for the future. As the average age of the American farmer hovers around 60 years old and the growing majority of our citizens call cities home, there is a pressing need to cultivate a new generation of farmers who can sustain our nation’s agricultural productivity in urban centers.
In a room buzzing with ideas and tensions, there was no staunch opposition to promoting urban agricultural initiatives, but rather widespread enthusiasm fueled by the USDA’s expressed commitment to doing so. The wise words of one student, Michael Swyers, acting as the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, cautioned the exuberant group “to slow things down before today’s enthusiasm becomes tomorrow’s conflict,” urging deeper consideration of project costs. The costs of advancing strong urban agricultural initiatives are not merely financial. They require significant, fairly distributed investments in technical development, infrastructure, and long-term financial support, investments that may not be mirrored proportionally by outputs. These issues of complicated costs, longevity, and equitable access were contested hotly, putting pressure on the USDA’s Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee working group to develop a pilot program that would meet the needs of all stakeholders.
Zoning regulations have traditionally confined urban agricultural initiatives to specific districts separate from residential areas and to underutilized or contaminated industrial land, commonly referred to as brownfields. Developers must then confront land stabilisation processes, often pouring concrete over contaminated ground as a temporary solution that delays the more costly and lengthy process of full soil remediation. Contrast this with rural areas, where often the only thing standing between vacant land and its new farmers is an unsigned contract.
Urban agriculture also requires growers with lifelong visions for farming, building, and providing for their home communities. These interests were supported by students representing groups such as the National Black Farmers Association, CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute, Detroit Black Community Food Sovereignty Network, and others, seeking more than vague assurances for their investments of time, money, and energy. These groups lobbied to prioritize stability, longevity, and a fair return on farmers’ temporal investments, though whether that return could be realized was debated. Historically, opportunities for long-standing, stable farming ventures have not been equally afforded to the passionate people of our country. Dating back centuries, black farmers have faced discrimination in the disbursement of government loans and subsidies. Hope uplifted the scenario group’s belief that a well-structured surge in urban farming projects for diverse populations could offer plentiful opportunities to these dreamers who deserve them.
The initial focus of the pilot program landed on brownfield stabilization, limited by zoning burdens and space, and left little room to consider initiatives that utilize uncontaminated swaths of soil, such as those promoted by student representatives of Shangri La Gardens in Texas and Oakland Avenue Urban Farm in Detroit. To bypass these limitations of available healthy soils, the proposal emphasized hydroponics and aquaponics systems, much to the dismay of Jordan Watkins, role-playing as the Executive Director of the Detroit Black Community Food Sovereignty Network, who expressed, “I feel like we’re being excluded because we have soil rehabilitation projects and we are not getting support for that.” Her concerns were left largely unaddressed, as other interest groups, including universities and research advocates, lobbied effectively for soil-free production methods, citing needs for technological innovation and efficient land utilization.
During the later working group session, a new federal regulation was passed requiring mandatory testing for forever chemicals (specifically PFAS) at all agricultural production sites, regardless of whether they contained soil. The increased testing requirements created new barriers to entry for urban farmers, requiring costly chemical tests before and during production. This legislation made budgeting for long-term commitments more challenging and enhanced the viability of a three to five-year pilot program. Some restrained admissions from government personnel suggested that the USDA would accept shorter-term proposals demonstrating measurable progress, even if they fall short of long-term goals for community transformation and agricultural productivity. Such proposals may satisfy a broad range of stakeholders, but are they more valuable than deeper, multi-decade commitments to providing land and financial support to specific communities? That tension sits at the heart of development. And beyond development lies another question: how will we distribute the food grown?
Through the pilot proposal, the tasks of processing and distributing food were assigned to local food hubs, which have the infrastructure and networks to support produce sales. Though they may not have as stable revenue or market share as larger grocers, they benefit the locality by keeping food dollars within the community and ensuring new farmers have a market with active shoppers and restaurants. Producing food in dense urban centers also requires agricultural expertise, which is not widespread among young prospective farmers. To support them, the proposal identified older, experienced farmers with connections to land-grant universities and extension agencies to serve as mentors and train new farmers. In concert with training efforts, university research programs would be integrated to advance best practices and pilot innovative solutions.
This experience put on full display the power of cooperation and thoughtful collaboration. Many groups with competing interests came together to develop a four-year pilot program to support urban agriculture that was ultimately accepted by the student role-playing as the USDA Secretary. While the plan did not fully assure long-term financial support for new farmers, it provided a clear pathway to get started, with backing from experienced farmers, researchers, and community organizations. The proposal supports the education, development, and structure for new farmers to take the reins of our dynamic agricultural system. Ultimately, we can ask ourselves: Was the solution truly viable? Absolutely. Did achieving it require humility, empathetic listening, and compromise? Without question. Such is the work of thoughtful, participatory policy development.
This blog is part of a series written by Arizona State University (ASU) graduate students who role-played as journalists in Model USDA 2026, a multi-day simulation hosted by the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at ASU.