Reasons to merge states and call it Columbia
I have examined the 2/20/20 article in the CDA Press (Oreidacal?) from a spatial-geographical perspective. I agree that the concept of merging “conservative” parts of California and Oregon with Idaho has merit, but wish to differ with the boundaries of this proposed state for the following reasons:
(1) Watershed management is an important issue, particularly regarding the control of wildfires in Oregon and Washington. Using the watershed divide along the Cascade Mountain Range in these two states as a boundary would make more sense while still separating more conservative areas to the east from more liberal areas to the west of the drainage divide.
2) The physical geography and political views on either side of the Cascades in Washington are similar to those in Oregon. Therefore, I propose a reconfigured state to include the portion of the Columbia River basin found in Eastern Washington. I would name the new state “Columbia” since the Columbia River and its tributaries would drain a large majority of the proposed state that is south of the 49th parallel.
3) Northern California and possibly the mountainous southwestern part of Oregon (near Medford) should be excluded from the expanded state. A significant part of Northern California near Redding is within the Central Valley (Sacramento-San Joaquin) drainage basin (watershed management factor again). California authorities should consider dividing their large and populous (40 million people) state into two or more states independently of what may transpire politically north of their state.
(4) I propose to include in the proposed Columbia a “conservative” transportation corridor to be located immediately north of the Columbia River from White Salmon, Wash., west to the Pacific Ocean. Export of agricultural products and especially fossil fuels to Asia are subject to left-wing whims of current Washington and Oregon governments because of their hypersensitivity to environmental pollution. Movement of fossil fuels through pipelines is much safer than rail transport. Nonetheless, would liberal governments block construction of pipelines through the Columbia Gorge, or block port expansion at Kelso-Longview and/or at the mouth of the Columbia River? Based on events in the recent past out of Olympia, the answer is probably yes.
(5) We need to be aware of fossil fuels being extracted in large amounts in the energy-rich conservative Province of Alberta and their export to the west and south of this Province. In this regard the political divide within British Columbia is somewhat similar to that in Oregon and Washington. Left-wingers are strong in the Vancouver and Vancouver Island areas. Consequently the BC Provincial Government is currently thwarting plans to add additional pipeline capacity from Alberta to the BC coast. I suspect that these pipelines could be approved more readily and built through the Crowsnest Pass, Southeastern BC, and within the proposed Columbia State to export terminals near the mouth of the Columbia River.
I agree with Gov. Little that spatial expansion of the state of Idaho faces “a lot of government and legal hurdles” at county, state and federal levels. Nonetheless the potential benefits to “Columbia” residents justify serious study of this proposed political change. In my opinion the proposed name “Greater Idaho” may imply that Idaho is considering the annexation of one or more political entities whereas “Columbia” is a neutral geographical name that better reflects a merger of two or more entities. In the proposed state of Columbia, Boise would be well positioned centrally to be the capital city.
•••
David W. Lake, was born and raised in Edmonton, Alberta. He holds a Ph D in Geography from Oklahoma. He’s now retired in Post Falls. Email: dwdelake@twc.com.