The Prairie Doesn't Care About Your Border
Stand at the Saskatchewan-North Dakota border crossing at Portal, and look around. The landscape is identical on both sides: flat or gently rolling grassland, grain elevators punctuating the horizon, sky that goes on forever. The 49th parallel is invisible to the eye—and to the ecosystem.
The northern Great Plains constitute a single bioregion that humans have divided with arbitrary lines. The same grasses grow, the same birds migrate, the same aquifers flow beneath both sides. Integration wouldn't create something new; it would acknowledge something that already exists.
Current Cross-Border Realities
Agriculture:
- Saskatchewan and the Dakotas grow many of the same crops: wheat, canola, barley, lentils, flax
- They face the same challenges: drought, commodity prices, input costs, climate variability
- They compete in the same global markets, often against each other
- Farm families on both sides of the border share equipment, knowledge, and sometimes intermarry
Energy:
- North Dakota's Bakken oil field extends into Saskatchewan's portion of the Williston Basin
- Pipelines cross the border regularly
- Saskatchewan's potash and North Dakota's oil could be complementary rather than competing
Transportation:
- Rail lines were built to move grain regardless of national boundaries
- Highway connections exist but are underutilized
- Airports in Regina, Saskatoon, Fargo, and Sioux Falls serve overlapping markets
What Integration Could Mean
Agricultural Coordination:
Imagine a single prairie agricultural policy: coordinated crop insurance, shared research institutions, unified pest management, joint marketing boards. Instead of competing to sell wheat to the same buyers, a unified prairie could negotiate as a bloc.
Infrastructure Efficiency:
One highway system. One rail policy. Coordinated airport development. The current patchwork of separate planning leads to duplication and gaps.
Water Management:
The Missouri River system and the Saskatchewan River system are both critical to prairie life. Currently, they're managed by different countries with different priorities. Integration could mean watershed-based management that makes ecological sense.
Economic Development:
A combined Saskatchewan-Dakotas region would have approximately 2.8 million people and a GDP approaching $180 billion CAD. That's not world-beating, but it's enough to matter—enough to attract investment, support universities, and build infrastructure.
Challenges
Integration isn't simple:
- Regulatory Differences: Farm programs, environmental standards, labour laws—all would need harmonization
- Currency: The shift from USD to CAD would affect every transaction
- Political Culture: North Dakota is reliably Republican; Saskatchewan swings; South Dakota leans Republican. How would these cultures blend?
- Identity: Would Dakotans feel like Saskatchewanians? Would Saskatchewanians welcome them?
Questions for Discussion
- What cross-border inefficiencies do you notice in prairie life today?
- Which areas would benefit most from integration: agriculture, energy, transportation, or something else?
- How long would true integration take—a year? A decade? A generation?
- What could we learn from other cross-border regions (e.g., the European Union's agricultural policy)?
This forum explores the practical dimensions of prairie integration—what would change, what would stay the same, and whether the whole could be greater than the sum of its parts.