Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.93
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.010 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that in metropolitan areas of this state, experiencing heavy population growth, increased problems arise from rapid proliferation of municipalities and haphazard extension of and competition to extend municipal boundaries. These problems affect adversely the quality and quantity and cost of municipal services furnished, the financial integrity of certain municipalities, the consistency of local regulations, and many other incidents of local government. Further, the competition among municipalities for unincorporated territory and the disorganizing effect thereof on land use, the preservation of property values and the desired objective of a consistent comprehensive land use plan for populated areas, makes it appropriate that the legislature provide a method of guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities in metropolitan areas so that such problems may be avoided and that residents and businesses in those areas may rely on the logical growth of local government affecting them.
[ 1967 c 189 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1976–1997 · leading case: City of Moses Lake v. Grant Cnty., 693 P.2d 140 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Moses Lake v. Grant Cnty., 693 P.2d 140 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “On May 26, 1983, cities Moses Lake and Ephrata, and the Town of Quincy com *258 menced an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for a writ of prohibition to restrain Grant County, claiming the commissioners exceeded their authority in creating a review board by…”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.93.010. The legislature also recognized that competition among local jurisdictions for unincorporated territory has a “disorganizing effect .”
Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “The legislative purpose is set forth in RCW 36.93.010: The legislature finds that in metropolitan areas of this state, experiencing heavy population growth, increased *566 problems arise from rapid proliferation of municipalities and haphazard extension of and competition to…”
City of Richland v. Franklin Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 676 P.2d 425 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “It argues that the purpose for which the annexation statutes and procedures have been promulgated would have been better served by a joint hearing in this case.”
Spokane Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 8 v. Spokane Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 618 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 616 (1979); see RCW 36.93.010; RCW 36.93.180. In addition to "guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities" under RCW 36.”
City of Wenatchee v. Boundary Review Bd., 693 P.2d 135 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “RCW 36.93.010. For every annexation decision, the Review Board must consider the factors set forth in RCW 36.”
Kitsap Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 7 v. Kitsap Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 943 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Applying these factors to a BRB, we conclude a BRB is not a state agency because (1) the purpose of each BRB is to guide and control the growth of municipalities in local areas, RCW 36.93.010; (2) each BRB determines its own rules, order of business, and regulations, RCW *758 36.”
Orchard Grove Water Ass'n v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 600 P.2d 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “See RCW 36.93.010; RCW 36.93.180. In carrying out this function, once its jurisdiction is invoked, the board must approve: The extension of permanent water .”
Whitworth Water Dist. No. 2 v. City of Spokane, 550 P.2d 1181 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “” This is in keeping with the purposes of the boundary review act, expressed in RCW 36.93.010: “The legislature finds that in metropolitan areas of this state, experiencing heavy population growth, increased problems arise from rapid proliferation of municipalities and haphazard…”
Forsgreen v. City of Spokane, 627 P.2d 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “We do not find this position meritorious under the controlling statutes. The purpose of the Boundary Review Board is to "provide a method of guiding and controlling the creation and growth of municipalities .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.