Urban sprawl.

The character of those two words, and the gravelly way they must be spat from the mouth, immediately create a bad impression. Surely, something that sounds so ugly cannot be good.

Opponents of real estate development obviously took a lesson from the parties on both sides of the abortion question in framing their issue. Just as the monikers “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are, on their face, impossible to disagree with, so is “urban sprawl” difficult to embrace.

But an anti-development concept that has stealthily established itself as reality in the last decade was dealt a quiet blow in January. Unfortunately for the real estate community, that setback has not been publicized with anywhere near the zeal dedicated to perpetuating the idea that urban sprawl soon will fill our land with impervious cover, from sea to shining sea.

The federal government first gave anti-development activists the evidence they needed to fight sprawl with a study released in 1997. That study, which was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), suggested that development had stepped up at an alarming rate during the years 1992 through 1997, eating up thousands of acres of prime farmland.

While a strong economy did create a high level of real estate development during those years, the numbers were not nearly as impressive as the USDA first suggested. In fact, the agency has quietly revised down its original figures by about 30 percent. During those six years, about 11.2 million acres of farmland were developed, compared to the 16 million originally suggested.

The study, called the National Resources Inventory, also dramatically overestimated the amount of range land and forest land developed in the mid-90s.

From hearing environmental activists talk, most Americans could be led to think that crop land is disappearing so quickly the country soon will have no room left to grow food.

That’s why many would be shocked to find that, according to the USDA, only 6.6 percent of the country’s land was developed as of 1997. That is up quite a bit from the 5 percent in 1982, but still not as much as those with an agenda would have us believe.

That means that developed land actually makes up the smallest category of land types, such as forest, crop and range. And that 6.6 percent of land use is nothing compared to the federal government’s 21 percent ownership of America’s acreage.

Yes, federal land totaled about 402 million acres in 1997. Of course, that number increased significantly after former President Clinton’s co-opting of millions more acres for federal use in his final days in office. And no, these lands are not just for national parks and monuments.

A surprising 47 percent of land in California is owned by the federal government. That number jumps to a startling 51 percent in Oregon, 84 percent in Idaho and 85 percent in Nevada. Federal ownership decreases significantly to the east of the Rockies, where private ownership dominates the landscape.

Of course, there is some fuel for environmentalists’ fires. From 1982 to 1992, approximately 1.4 million acres per year were developed in the United States. From 1992 to 1992, that number rose to 2.2 million acres per year. But what development foes don’t tell you is that 2.2 million acres of development equals .06 percent of the country’s land mass.

Environmentalists, however, content that this increased development is far too much, even with the downward-revised numbers. Up until now, the federal government has seemed to agree.

In fact, the USDA has for several years tried to protect farmland using expensive tactics like buying easements, ostensibly to prevent erosion. Last year, the agency spent $10 million to buy farm easements in California alone.

After all, the agency contends that more than 3 million acres of prime farmland were developed from 1992 to 1997. Unfortunately, since much of the agency’s data still is being revised to correct previous errors, a percentage is not available.

But it doesn’t take much of an imagination to figure out that the 3 million acres make up a tiny percentage of America’s crop and pasturelands, which together make up 497 million acres. Even if only one-fifth of that land is considered “prime farmland,” the 3 million acres of development wiped out less than 1 percent it.

What seems to be lacking in the debate on urban sprawl is a sense of proportion. Needless to say, libertarian opponents strongly oppose government subsidies to preserve farmland, citing the free markets at work. And since nearly 94 percent of America’s lands remain undeveloped, they may have a point.