COLUMBIA: Idea makes sense

I read a My Turn on March 4, page C7 by David Lake which suggested a combined area a little different from this and calling it Columbia instead of Greater Idaho or such. It would include Idaho and rural areas of Oregon and Washington including a Columbia River extension to the ocean on the north side so as to have access to a port at the mouth of the Columbia. (Thus bypassing the left coast’s bias against business.) It would exclude California, as they have closer port accesses to them via their own river systems.

In other words, basically Idaho, all of Oregon and Washington east of the Cascades, and half of the Columbia River area. He also opined that B.C. and Alberta fossil fuels could be funneled via this route since the B.C. government hassles any energy business ventures in its jurisdiction (similar left coast bias here).

This could vitalize the entire region. Boise would remain the new state capitol since it is near the physical center. See: https://cdapress.com/…/reasons-to-merge-states-and…/

ROBIN CRAVIOTTO

Rathdrum