Wash. Rev. Code » Title 53 · Chapter 53.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 53.20.010 (2026)

Adoption of harbor improvement plan

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be the duty of the port commission of any port district, before creating any improvements hereunder, to adopt a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvement in the port district, after a public hearing thereon, of which notice shall be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the port district, and no expenditure for the carrying on of any harbor improvements shall be made by the port commission other than the necessary salaries, including engineers, clerical and office expenses of the port district, and the cost of engineering, surveying, preparation and collection of data necessary for the making and adoption of a general scheme of harbor improvements in the port district, unless and until the comprehensive scheme of harbor improvement has been so officially adopted by the port commission.
[ 1985 c 469 s 51; 1943 c 166 s 3; 1913 c 62 s 6; 1911 c 92 s 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 9694.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1965–2014 · leading case: In re the Recall of Telford, 166 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Recall of Telford, 166 Wash. 2d 148 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 8× “In his recall petition, West alleged the commissioners committed malfeasance because they approved expenditures and a lease without a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements as required under RCW 53.20.010. West argues that a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements must…”
In Re Recall of Telford, 206 P.3d 1248 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 7× “In his recall petition, West alleged the commissioners committed malfeasance because they approved expenditures and a lease without a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements as required under RCW 53.20.010. West argues that a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvements must…”
Port of Edmonds v. Nw. Fur Breeders Coop., Inc., 816 P.2d 1268 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Prior to this meeting, the Port published the following notice in The Herald: 1 *162 PORT OF EDMONDS Notice of Hearing The Port Commission of the Port of Edmonds will conduct a hearing pursuant to RCW 53.20.010 and 53.20.020 to determine if a supplemental Comprehensive Scheme of…”
Port of Seattle v. Isernio, 435 P.2d 991 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 2× “In support of their first assignment of error, that the court lacked jurisdiction, petitioners argue, syllogistically: (a) that RCW 53.20.010 2 requires that a port district, before creating any improvement, adopt a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvement .”
Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 509 P.2d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). “They correctly state that the Brownsville Small Boat Basin Plan is an integrated project for which a comprehensive plan is required pursuant to the basic port district act as amended, RCW 53.20.010. This statute prohibits any improvements by a port district prior to official…”
State Ex Rel. Gorton v. Port of Walla Walla, 505 P.2d 796 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 4× “120, which require the adoption of specific budget items prior to expenditures for industrial development, were violated by the port’s acquisition of a parcel of land; and (3) whether RCW 53.20.010, requiring amendment of a comprehensive plan prior to expenditures for…”
Port of Seattle v. Certified Mfg. Co., 404 P.2d 25 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 2× “*599 It is urged that no comprehensive scheme of harbor improvement has been adopted, as required by RCW 53.20.010. 1 Assuming arguendo, that the adoption of a comprehensive scheme of harbor improvement is a condition precedent to the acquisition of the 35 acres being condemned…”
Columbia River Carbonates, V Port Of Woodland (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The comprehensive plan shall be modified only after public notice and hearing provided by RCW 53.20.010. 4 CRC clarifies it is "arguing that after the Port decided that it would be prudent to hold such a public hearing, it failed to comply with notification requirements of…”
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.