2026-04-24 11:45 UTC
Yeah, thats a great example of where you run into the differences between 'Cascadia' as a bioregion, defined primarily by watershed networks, snd 'Cascadia' as a maybe possible legal/political entity, based on current existing borders.
IIRC, the bioregion Cascadia basically only extends down to bits of Northern California... but the political reality doesn't match well with this at all.
Perhaps state delegates could all send couriers to Goodsprings for a conference, to hash out the details, lol.
Cascadia vs Greater California vs ... New Zion/Deseret?
Replies (1)
-
@trailee@sh.itjust.works 2026-04-24 14:55
Political divisions tend to use rivers as borders because they’re naturally difficult to cross, but mountain ranges/watershed boundaries would make much more sense for self-sufficiency among the divisions without excessive squabbling. Although BC/Alberta did a good job in that regard! So yes, it’s mostly Northern California that could join the Cascadia party. Hence my qualifier of “intact”. Unfortunately, NorCal is predominantly on the red team politically. It wouldn’t be as devastating (or possible) to cut off the Pend Oreille or Spokane rivers from adding to the Columbia.