A lot of the Cascade range is basalt, and you don't need to cut down very far to expose it. A result is that most waterways in Oregon have revealed a lot of basalt around them, at least in the mountains.
Yep, there's a ton of it to be found especially in the Columbia River Gorge. For anyone not hip to Nick Zentner, allow me to introduce you to this national treasure...
Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.
... how is a comment observing the really cool basalt rock formations in the photo being downvoted? Most HN readers are (I'd assume) nerds, are we not allowed to nerd out about geography?
> Its owner, a nonprofit that supports a community of Benedictine monks, put it on the market earlier this year.
>The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.
>The listing worried fans of the natural wonder. But at the tail end of the legislative session this month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped in and approved $2.1 million to buy the falls and its surrounding land.
Zero chance this wasn't arranged in some capacity off record.
Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades, and nothing had happened, so they escalated. Here in California in east bay there are thousands of acres of land around Mt. Diablo that are held by a non profit trust because the state/parks department is too lazy to aquire it/don't have funds to manage it. The privately owned/managed land around Mt. Diablo is roughly equal in size to the state park it surrounds.
>Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades
Third option:
Monks want to put up some minor tourist attraction, put in some parking and hand rails or engage in literally anything, doesn't really matter what since it's all invariably regulated near water. Bureaucrat who doesn't "get it" says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do XYZ first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford XZY, that would make this whole thing a nonstarter or defeat the point. Site languishes for a decade or two because while the subsequent bureaucrats may know what's right they can't necessarily ignore what the first guy said without sticking their necks way out. Eventually the monks find someone to help them out who gets the state to take it off their hands. Maybe they monks get a fair deal, maybe they're losing their ass, who knows.
This fact pattern is really common with redevelopment of eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.
Drat! I was going to buy this and put the entrance to my secret lair behind the waterfall. I would have gotten away with it too if not for those darn kids!
I just want to remind everyone: Washington, Idaho and Oregon are terrible places to live.
In 2 of these states, it just rains all the time. You never ever want to visit these waterfalls, because you're perennially living in a waterfall. The local population is always depressed/suicidal. The only Oregonian of note got in trouble for that whole Nancy Kerrigan fiasco. And Washington is under the grip of Bezos and Gates. If you think Windows is bad ...
And Idaho, is, well, Idaho. There's a reason people doubt its existence.[1] It's because there is absolutely nothing of note there.
Texas is great! Lots of land. Number 1 in green energy. Go there.
Yep, this is sooo true. Washington and Oregon are especially terrible. I tell you what, you're going to be sitting in traffic in Seattle just as much as you do in LA. And it's all very expensive. Texas is a much better decision.
Please move to Texas. Those of us who like waterfalls, are not suicidal, and who will accept beautiful nature in lieu of a functional state government appreciate you freeing the capacity for someone else.
That I don't get about the PNW is the property prices of places hours away from any economic center that pays well enough to justify them. Are that many people still working remote for FAANG that those prices can be justified?
The meme is "<____> sucks, dont' go there." Traditionally spoken by a "local", in reference to stuff they love. It kinda/sorta makes sense in the broader culture of "locals define themselves by excluding others" left-coast parochialism. (I don't think HN is the correct place for it.)
Which is actually funny. And the "joke" is that the person who made the tier list is trying to "hide" the resorts they want to ski (Mt Rose., Mammoth, Kirkwood, Sugar Bowl, Alpine) from whoever's reading the blog post. While falsely "praising" the famous places in an effort to divert the crowds there. (The Reddit post is great b/c the author clearly communicates that they're being ridiculous.)
Sort of. Phrasing varies, but at least for Idaho it's very common for people who live in Idaho to go on the internet and tell people how awful Idaho is and how you should absolutely not move there.
On a related note, for people who do move to Idaho, one of the things they are advised to do as soon as possible is get new license plates so that they're not constantly advertising the fact that they came from out-of-state.
Idaho has received a massive amount of immigration from other states and many people are unhappy about this.
As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education, crime and homelessness are running wild, budgets are being cut (schools being permanently closed), we bought a waterfall. Thanks.
Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
Also 2 years back the teachers strike in November for funds that... weren't there... that was pretty damaging to my argument to get my kids out of private and into public (we ended up moving to WA in the end).
https://www.redfin.com/OR/Scotts-Mills/Abiqua-Falls-Lot-400-...
Seems like reasonable use of public dollars (~$2.1M) to protect and preserve a public good as public land.
Really stunning piece of land. Glad it’s able to be protected
"Street View" LoL. (It's a bit of a hike from the nearest street)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/btpxqpNopb79DxBz7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ddRk8RUzBfEd47ya7
Yeah, it's a bit of a hike from the nearest street.
Google Stream View
Very cool visible basalt
A lot of the Cascade range is basalt, and you don't need to cut down very far to expose it. A result is that most waterways in Oregon have revealed a lot of basalt around them, at least in the mountains.
Yep, there's a ton of it to be found especially in the Columbia River Gorge. For anyone not hip to Nick Zentner, allow me to introduce you to this national treasure...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQhjkemEyUo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSi17xJB1Sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjLO9ABKYU
Pilot rock outside of Ashland you can even hike to the top
It's rare to have basements where I live in Bend, because it's all lava rock right under our feet, which is really expensive to remove.
Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.
... how is a comment observing the really cool basalt rock formations in the photo being downvoted? Most HN readers are (I'd assume) nerds, are we not allowed to nerd out about geography?
> Its owner, a nonprofit that supports a community of Benedictine monks, put it on the market earlier this year.
>The foundation put the property up for open auction in early February, meaning there was no minimum or maximum bid, she said. It accepted the offer the state made under the bill that passed.
>The listing worried fans of the natural wonder. But at the tail end of the legislative session this month, a bipartisan group of lawmakers stepped in and approved $2.1 million to buy the falls and its surrounding land.
Zero chance this wasn't arranged in some capacity off record.
Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades, and nothing had happened, so they escalated. Here in California in east bay there are thousands of acres of land around Mt. Diablo that are held by a non profit trust because the state/parks department is too lazy to aquire it/don't have funds to manage it. The privately owned/managed land around Mt. Diablo is roughly equal in size to the state park it surrounds.
This kind of thing exists in many places in the USA for many reasons (tax relief, government stupidity or inability or lack of funds, etc).
Sometimes the government is forbidden from buying land but nothing stops an individual or charity.
>Probably they had been trying to sell it to the state for months/years/decades
Third option:
Monks want to put up some minor tourist attraction, put in some parking and hand rails or engage in literally anything, doesn't really matter what since it's all invariably regulated near water. Bureaucrat who doesn't "get it" says no this is a special site if you want to do that you need to do XYZ first or GFY. Monks say we can't afford XZY, that would make this whole thing a nonstarter or defeat the point. Site languishes for a decade or two because while the subsequent bureaucrats may know what's right they can't necessarily ignore what the first guy said without sticking their necks way out. Eventually the monks find someone to help them out who gets the state to take it off their hands. Maybe they monks get a fair deal, maybe they're losing their ass, who knows.
This fact pattern is really common with redevelopment of eyesore unoccupied buildings in prime locations so it wouldn't surprise me to see it going on with some natural site like this.
Drat! I was going to buy this and put the entrance to my secret lair behind the waterfall. I would have gotten away with it too if not for those darn kids!
meddling kids. :P
One of the rare times where I’m probably kind of ok with it
It feels like it's back where it belongs.
I just want to remind everyone: Washington, Idaho and Oregon are terrible places to live.
In 2 of these states, it just rains all the time. You never ever want to visit these waterfalls, because you're perennially living in a waterfall. The local population is always depressed/suicidal. The only Oregonian of note got in trouble for that whole Nancy Kerrigan fiasco. And Washington is under the grip of Bezos and Gates. If you think Windows is bad ...
And Idaho, is, well, Idaho. There's a reason people doubt its existence.[1] It's because there is absolutely nothing of note there.
Texas is great! Lots of land. Number 1 in green energy. Go there.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/groups/221739400799965/posts/302745...
Yes everyone should stay away from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho! Terrible places to live! California is a dream compared to those hell-holes.
Indeed! No one made a song with the title "Washington Dreamin". Same with Oregon and Idaho.
Yep, this is sooo true. Washington and Oregon are especially terrible. I tell you what, you're going to be sitting in traffic in Seattle just as much as you do in LA. And it's all very expensive. Texas is a much better decision.
> I tell you what ... Texas is a much better decision.
I tell you h'what*
Have you seen Texas city traffic lately?
Have you visited Seattle in rush hour?
I kid you not when I say it took over 20 minutes for me to drive one block to get on to the freeway. There was no accident or other problem.
I go to LA often. Seattle is way worse.
Please move to Texas. Those of us who like waterfalls, are not suicidal, and who will accept beautiful nature in lieu of a functional state government appreciate you freeing the capacity for someone else.
I guess the OP has never experienced any part of eastern Oregon or Washington.
Going around shitting on other states is a very Texan thing to do
That I don't get about the PNW is the property prices of places hours away from any economic center that pays well enough to justify them. Are that many people still working remote for FAANG that those prices can be justified?
No, but rich assholes like getting away from it all too.
I have no doubts you're right, but got any examples? Just curious to see them.
As a Texan,
stop telling people to move here, I-35 just keeps getting worse
Is this a meme? I've never heard it before.
The meme is "<____> sucks, dont' go there." Traditionally spoken by a "local", in reference to stuff they love. It kinda/sorta makes sense in the broader culture of "locals define themselves by excluding others" left-coast parochialism. (I don't think HN is the correct place for it.)
Another example of the meme style is this ski resort "tier" map: https://www.reddit.com/r/skiing/comments/1d96f93/my_tierlist...
Which is actually funny. And the "joke" is that the person who made the tier list is trying to "hide" the resorts they want to ski (Mt Rose., Mammoth, Kirkwood, Sugar Bowl, Alpine) from whoever's reading the blog post. While falsely "praising" the famous places in an effort to divert the crowds there. (The Reddit post is great b/c the author clearly communicates that they're being ridiculous.)
Sort of. Phrasing varies, but at least for Idaho it's very common for people who live in Idaho to go on the internet and tell people how awful Idaho is and how you should absolutely not move there. On a related note, for people who do move to Idaho, one of the things they are advised to do as soon as possible is get new license plates so that they're not constantly advertising the fact that they came from out-of-state. Idaho has received a massive amount of immigration from other states and many people are unhappy about this.
As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education, crime and homelessness are running wild, budgets are being cut (schools being permanently closed), we bought a waterfall. Thanks.
> As the state struggles being ranked 47 in education
That's wild. I would have never guessed Oregon to be that low somehow. I could have seen some poor southern states maybe or West Virginia.
Wonder what data you found? I found https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-scho... and it's 40th with a downtrend. Not sure how reliable that is though.
Linear rankings like this are often misleading because the difference of 10 spots on the list may be very minor in absolute terms.
I don't think there's a single factor. Oregon is fairly rural, poor, and has a huge substance abuse problem, which likely factors in. It's probably the same thing that's happening in Nevada.
>some poor southern states
Just for your curiosity - the remarkable progress in Mississippi really challenged my similarly held bias.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/mississippi-schools-tr...
Oregon is also extremely rural - Portland is the most populous city in the state by far, and its e.g. far smaller than all cities in the Houston/Austin/Dallas/SanAntonio metroplex. There's important cultural factors that impact its education too, like historic underfunding, poor education spending priorities, and out of touch unions (many days off, striking mid year for funds that aren't there). But I always felt the rural-ness impacting wider education trends was very under represented in discourse.
It's sadly true that Oregon schools are underperforming, but the idea that spending money on public land is somehow removing money from schools is an uninformed trope. Public funds are usually earmarked for specific uses; it's not just one big slush fund.
That is certainly a large part of it.
1. There's no standard grades (we don't use A through F like everyone else).
2. Teacher's cannot tell you averages in your class/grade so you don't know how well your child is doing compared to their average peer.
3. Attendance doesn't matter.
4. Grades don't matter, you can fail and still pass.
5. The push for "emotional growth centers" in schools created an unfit learning environment in many schools. Teachers are unable to stop problematic kids or remove them from the class. Kids feel unsafe when problematic kids are having a meltdown.
6. The average number of instructional hours in Oregon is well below other states because things like "teacher conferences" are counted as full school days even though there's no school.
The list goes on and on.
Yes-- the funds are earmarked for another use. However, that doesn't prevent the state from making changes and adjusting where funds are allocated. Let the people vote on it.
I originally mentioned "grades don't matter" in my comment but removed it cause I wasn't fully informed on how it works.
But wow... that is truly insane and worse than I could have imagined. If I had kids I wouldn't even consider raising them in Oregon schools.
Also 2 years back the teachers strike in November for funds that... weren't there... that was pretty damaging to my argument to get my kids out of private and into public (we ended up moving to WA in the end).
The number bounces around a bit, but 47/48 is widely found.
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...