Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 53.06.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The port district commissions in this state are empowered to designate the Washington public ports association as a coordinating agency through which the duties imposed by RCW 53.06.020 may be performed, harmonized or correlated. The purposes of the Washington public ports association shall be:
(1) To initiate and carry on the necessary studies, investigations and surveys required for the proper development and improvement of the commerce and business generally common to all port districts, and to assemble and analyze the data thus obtained and to cooperate with the state of Washington, port districts both within and without the state of Washington, and other operators of terminal and transportation facilities for this purpose, and to make such expenditures as are necessary for these purposes, including the proper promotion and advertising of all such properties, utilities and facilities;
(2) To establish coordinating and joint marketing bodies comprised of association members, including but not limited to establishment of a federation of Washington ports as described in RCW 53.06.070, as may be necessary to provide effective and efficient marketing of the state's trade, tourism, and travel resources;
(3) To exchange information relative to port construction, maintenance, operation, administration and management;
(4) To promote and encourage port development along sound economic lines;
(5) To promote and encourage the development of transportation, commerce and industry;
(6) To operate as a clearinghouse for information, public relations and liaison for the port districts of the state and to serve as a channel for cooperation among the various port districts and for the assembly and presentation of information relating to the needs and requirements of port districts to the public.
[ 1989 c 425 s 4; 1961 c 31 s 3.]

Notes:

FindingsSeverability1989 c 425: See notes following RCW 53.06.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1995–1995 · leading case: Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 904 P.2d 1124 (Wash. 1995).
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 904 P.2d 1124 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 3× “[62] On March 17, 1992, the Commissioners of the Port of Bellingham adopted Resolution 969, stating in part: "WHEREAS, the commission finds that it would be unduly burdensome to index all the many varied Port records given the wide range of Port activities, the limited staffing…”
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wash. 2d 820 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “RCW 53.06.030(4). RCW 53.06.030(5). ROW 53.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 53.06.030(1) — 1 case
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 904 P.2d 1124 (Wash. 1995). “[62] On March 17, 1992, the Commissioners of the Port of Bellingham adopted Resolution 969, stating in part: "WHEREAS, the commission finds that it would be unduly burdensome to index all the many varied Port records given the wide range of Port activities, the limited staffing…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 53.06.030(4) — 2 cases
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wash. 2d 820 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 53.06.030(4). RCW 53.06.030(5). ROW 53.”
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 904 P.2d 1124 (Wash. 1995). “[62] On March 17, 1992, the Commissioners of the Port of Bellingham adopted Resolution 969, stating in part: "WHEREAS, the commission finds that it would be unduly burdensome to index all the many varied Port records given the wide range of Port activities, the limited staffing…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 53.06.030(5) — 2 cases
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wash. 2d 820 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 53.06.030(4). RCW 53.06.030(5). ROW 53.”
Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 904 P.2d 1124 (Wash. 1995). “[62] On March 17, 1992, the Commissioners of the Port of Bellingham adopted Resolution 969, stating in part: "WHEREAS, the commission finds that it would be unduly burdensome to index all the many varied Port records given the wide range of Port activities, the limited staffing…”
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.