Seems like reasonable use of public dollars (~$2.1M) to protect and preserve a public good as public land.

It'd attract all sorts of billionaires to bid on it and make it unaffordable for the public.

(The story seems to be old though, so hopefully it did end up being sold to the public.)

>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. The state doesn't "just" buy waterfalls without such plans being tacitly agreed to beforehand or at least deemed viable by people who "know things".

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...