The Pacific Record has used the word "Cascadia" throughout its publication to describe California, Oregon, and Washington β€” the three-state economic and political bloc at the center of our argument. That usage is deliberate and defensible. It is also, for readers familiar with the older and distinct Cascadia independence movement, potentially confusing. This issue exists to resolve that confusion β€” and to treat both frameworks with the precision they deserve.

There are, in the clearest terms, two distinct ideas that travel under the name Cascadia. They share a flag. They share some geography. They share a deep frustration with distant federal governments that don't understand the Pacific Coast. But they are grounded in different histories, draw their boundaries differently, make different arguments, and attract different constituencies. Treating them as the same thing β€” or dismissing either one because of the other β€” is an intellectual error that weakens both.

Here is an honest accounting of each.

The Original Cascadia β€” Bioregion and Pacific Northwest Identity

A
Founded c. 1970s Β· Oregon, Washington, British Columbia (+ Idaho, SE Alaska, N. California)
The Cascadia Bioregion Movement

The original Cascadia idea was not born in a political science department or a legislative chamber. It was born in the environmental movement of the 1970s, rooted in a concept called bioregionalism β€” the idea that human communities should be organized around the ecological systems they inhabit rather than the political lines drawn on a map by people who had never seen the place.

David McCloskey, a Seattle University sociology professor, formalized the concept in the early 1970s, defining Cascadia as a region unified by its watersheds β€” principally the Columbia, Fraser, and Snake river systems β€” and by the ecology that those watersheds sustain. His Cascadia ran from the Copper River in Southeast Alaska to Cape Mendocino in Northern California, and east to the continental divide and the Yellowstone Caldera. It is a region defined by where the salmon swim.1

The bioregional Cascadia includes British Columbia in the north β€” not as an afterthought but as its core. Vancouver and the Fraser River watershed are as central to the bioregional argument as Portland and the Willamette. The Pacific Northwest β€” Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia β€” form the ecological and cultural heart of this vision, with California appearing only in its far northern fringe (the Klamath watershed region), and Idaho present as part of the Snake River drainage.

The first Cascadia Bioregional Congress was held in 1986 at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Ernest Callenbach's 1975 novel Ecotopia imagined a seceded Pacific Northwest republic built on environmental sustainability β€” and became something of a founding text for the movement's cultural imagination. The Cascadia flag β€” the Doug fir on blue and white and green β€” was designed by this tradition and remains its most visible symbol today, appearing regularly at Portland Timbers and Seattle Sounders matches.2

βœ“ Core Strengths
Deep ecological and cultural authenticity β€” rooted in the actual landscape
Cross-border identity including British Columbia β€” genuinely Pacific in orientation
Indigenous sovereignty frameworks built into its founding vision
30+ years of cultural infrastructure: music, art, sports identity, organizations
Bioregionalism is intellectually coherent β€” ecological boundaries often make more practical sense than political ones
βœ— Honest Limitations
BC is Canadian β€” any independence framework crossing that border requires two countries' legal systems, not one
Excludes California's economic weight almost entirely β€” the bioregional argument works without it
The fiscal case ($275B net CA contribution) is nearly irrelevant to the ecological argument
Idaho inclusion complicates the political math significantly β€” Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the union
Population (~16M for OR+WA+BC) is much smaller β€” less geopolitical leverage

The bioregional movement has also been careful to distinguish itself from uglier appropriations of Pacific Northwest identity. The white nationalist Northwest Front co-opted similar geographic boundaries and similar flag imagery for explicitly racist purposes β€” and the bioregional Cascadia movement has been explicit in its rejection of that ideology and its commitment to indigenous sovereignty and anti-racism as foundational values.3

The Pacific Record's Cascadia β€” The Fiscal and Electoral Bloc

B
Emerged prominently post-2024 Β· California, Oregon, Washington
The Three-State Economic and Political Argument

The three-state argument β€” California, Oregon, and Washington β€” is a different creature. It is not primarily an ecological argument or a cultural identity argument. It is a fiscal and political leverage argument, and California is not incidental to it β€” California is its entire foundation.

California generates approximately $806 billion in annual federal revenue β€” roughly 15.9% of everything the federal government collects.4 Without California, the combined OR+WA economy is substantial but not structurally transformative in the way that a CA+OR+WA bloc is. The $5.1 trillion combined GDP that makes Cascadia the #4 economy on Earth is overwhelmingly a California number. The "we fund your budget and you punish us for it" argument requires California to be the loudest voice in the room.

This three-state framework also maps to political geography in a way the bioregional model does not. 74 electoral votes. 27% of the 270 needed to win the presidency. No Democratic presidential candidate in modern history has won without all three states. That electoral leverage is the political argument's spine, and it only works because California's 54 electoral votes are included.

The current Pacific Record framework uses "Cascadia" as a convenient, evocative label for this three-state bloc β€” borrowing the flag's colors and cultural resonance while making a different argument β€” and one that has not yet been institutionally realized from the bioregional movement's. This is a choice worth being transparent about.

βœ“ Core Strengths
California's fiscal weight makes the economic argument overwhelming β€” $275B net contribution is the foundation
74 electoral votes create concrete political leverage that the bioregional model cannot match
All three states share a federal legal framework β€” no cross-border sovereignty complications
The three governors already coordinate β€” the institutional infrastructure already exists
Population of ~51.8M creates genuine sovereign weight comparable to major nations
βœ— Honest Limitations
California's complexity β€” 39.5M people with wildly different regional identities β€” makes unified political action genuinely hard
The cultural Cascadia identity is strongest in OR and WA, not CA β€” many Californians don't identify with it
Excluding BC means excluding a natural partner with shared Pacific Coast culture and existing cross-border relationships
The fiscal argument is powerful but recent β€” it doesn't have 50 years of cultural movement behind it
Central Valley, Inland Empire, and rural CA are culturally closer to the Southwest than to the Pacific Northwest

Side by Side β€” What Each Framework Argues

Dimension 🌲 Bioregion (ORΒ·WAΒ·BC) πŸ’° Fiscal Bloc (CAΒ·ORΒ·WA)
Founded 1970s environmental movement Β· First congress 1986 Prominent post-2024 Β· Accelerated 2025–26 by federal hostility
Core argument Ecological boundaries should match political ones. We share watersheds and culture more than we share anything with D.C. We generate 17% of federal revenue and subsidize states that vote against us. The fiscal relationship is unjust.
Why California? Marginally β€” only northern fringe (Klamath watershed) is bioregionally Cascadian Fundamentally β€” CA is the entire economic argument. Without it the GDP is modest. Without it there are no 74 electoral votes.
Why British Columbia? Fundamentally β€” BC is the northern heart of the bioregion. The Fraser River is as central as the Columbia. Marginally β€” BC adds cultural resonance and Pacific trade connection but is Canadian and cannot join an American political bloc
Primary audience Environmentalists, bioregionalists, Pacific NW cultural identity community, indigenous sovereignty advocates, artists Fiscally frustrated taxpayers, political organizers, business community, anyone who has seen the $275B net contribution number
Population ~16M (OR+WA+BC) Β· Smaller sovereign weight ~51.8M (CA+OR+WA) Β· Comparable to Spain or South Korea
GDP ~$1.5 trillion (OR+WA+BC) Β· World rank ~15th ~$5.1 trillion (CA+OR+WA) Β· World rank #4
Legal complexity High β€” crosses U.S.-Canada border, involves two federal systems and two constitutions Lower β€” entirely within U.S. federal framework, same legal system and courts
Cultural depth 50+ years of movement, flag, anthem, sports identity, art, literature Recent β€” borrows the flag's visual language while making a different argument
Path forward Cross-border compacts, cultural autonomy, bioregional governance frameworks, deeper OR-WA-BC integration Interstate compact, ballot measures, Study Commission, November 2026 and 2028 electoral strategy

Are They Compatible?

This is the most important question β€” and the honest answer is: largely yes, with significant caveats.

The two frameworks are not in conflict on most of what matters. Both argue that Pacific Coast people have more in common with each other than with the federal governments that claim authority over them. Both argue that ecological and cultural boundaries should carry more political weight than they currently do. Both are frustrated with the same distant federal priorities. Both have progressive values at their core β€” environmental stewardship, indigenous rights, social equity β€” that are meaningfully distinct from the conservative federal agenda they're pushing back against.

β–Έ Where They Converge Naturally

The bioregional framework's vision of deeper OR-WA-BC integration is entirely compatible with β€” and potentially accelerated by β€” the fiscal bloc's argument for greater state autonomy. A Cascadia that achieves meaningful self-governance for California, Oregon, and Washington would likely deepen its partnership with British Columbia naturally, through the same Pacific trade relationships, environmental compacts, and cultural ties that the bioregional movement has been building for 50 years. The fiscal argument wins the political battle. The bioregional argument provides the cultural home for what comes after.

β–Έ Where They Diverge Practically

The inclusion or exclusion of California is the central practical disagreement. Some in the bioregional movement actively resist California's inclusion β€” concerned that a 39.5-million-person state with a completely different regional character would overwhelm the Pacific Northwest identity that the bioregional movement has spent decades building. Cascadia Democratic Action, one of the most active current bioregional independence organizations, has explicitly limited itself to Oregon and Washington, declining to include California out of concern for being politically absorbed by a state three times their combined population.5 That is a real tension that deserves acknowledgment rather than dismissal.

β–Έ The British Columbia Complication

British Columbia's inclusion in the bioregional vision is culturally and ecologically sound. Politically it is complex. BC is a Canadian province β€” it cannot join an American interstate compact, participate in American ballot measures, or be part of any American self-determination process without Canada's involvement. The bioregional framework's cross-border vision is genuinely inspiring and genuinely difficult. A Pacific Record–style three-state fiscal compact can operate entirely within American constitutional law. A BC-inclusive framework requires bilateral negotiations with Ottawa, which introduces a second set of political complications at least as significant as the ones being navigated with Washington D.C.

Both Cascadias are making arguments that deserve to be heard. The ecological case that we belong to our watersheds more than to our capitals is true. The fiscal case that we fund the federal government disproportionately and receive hostility in return is also true. They are different arguments. They are both valid.

What The Pacific Record Means When It Says "Cascadia"

In the interest of transparency: when The Pacific Record uses the word "Cascadia," it refers to the three-state fiscal and political bloc of California, Oregon, and Washington. We borrow the flag's colors because they are beautiful and because they are already associated with Pacific Coast identity. We do not claim to represent the bioregional movement's vision, its 50-year history, or its British Columbia-inclusive geography.

We think both frameworks are worth serious attention. We think they are more complementary than competitive. And we think the people who have spent decades building the cultural infrastructure of Cascadian identity deserve credit for doing the harder, slower work of creating the conditions in which a political argument like ours can gain traction.

The bioregional Cascadia built the house. The fiscal argument is trying to light it up. Neither effort succeeds without the other's contribution.

If you are a bioregionalist who found The Pacific Record and felt that California's inclusion misrepresented the movement you've been part of β€” you're right to name that. This issue is our attempt to name it honestly rather than paper over it. If you are a newcomer who came for the fiscal argument and wants to understand the deeper cultural tradition behind the flag β€” we hope this issue sent you toward the Cascadia Department of Bioregion, CascadiaNow!, and the Cascadia Journal, all of which are doing work that precedes and enriches what we're attempting here.

Two Cascadias. Both real. Both worth understanding. Both, ultimately, pointing at the same thing: the Pacific Coast is its own place, and it deserves to be governed by people who know it.

Sources & References

  1. David McCloskey / Cascadia bioregion definition: Wikipedia, "Cascadia (bioregion)." en.wikipedia.org
  2. First Bioregional Congress (1986) / Ecotopia / flag history: Wikipedia, "Cascadia movement." en.wikipedia.org
  3. Northwest Front white nationalist appropriation / bioregional rejection: Cascadia Underground, "Cascadia: A Dream for Bioregional Autonomy." cascadiaunderground.org
  4. California $806B federal revenue / 15.9% share: USAFacts, FY2024. usafacts.org
  5. Cascadia Democratic Action limiting to OR and WA / CA concerns: Patrick Mazza, "Independent Cascadia? Questions to be asked," Cascadia Journal (July 2026). cascadia-journal.com
  6. OR+WA+BC GDP ~$1.5 trillion: Cascadia Department of Bioregion, "About Cascadia." cascadiabioregion.org
  7. Cascadia ranked #7 most likely secession movement (Time): Cascadia Department of Bioregion, "Independence." cascadiabioregion.org
  8. OR+WA pay $37B more than received; Ferguson tariff impact $2.2B: Cascadia Journal, "The State of the Cascadia Bioregion" (March 2026). cascadia-journal.com