Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 79.105.010 (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 legislature finds that state-owned aquatic lands are a finite natural resource of great value and an irreplaceable public heritage. The legislature recognizes that the state owns these aquatic lands in fee and has delegated to the department the responsibility to manage these lands for the benefit of the public. The legislature finds that water-dependent industries and activities have played a major role in the history of the state and will continue to be important in the future. The legislature finds that revenues derived from leases of state-owned aquatic lands should be used to enhance opportunities for public recreation, shoreline access, environmental protection, and other public benefits associated with the aquatic lands of the state. The legislature further finds that aquatic lands are faced with conflicting use demands.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2016–2018 · leading case: Pope Resources Lp And Opg Properties, V Wa State Dept Of Natural Resources
Pope Resources Lp & Opg Props., V Wa State Dept Of Nat. Resources, 389 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “See RCW 79.105.010. DNR repeatedly asserted its right to manage the aquatic lands within the Site, and it has extensively exercised its right to manage the aquatic lands within the Site by dictating what activities are allowed and not allowed.”
Pope Res., LP v. Wash. State Dep't of Nat. Res., 418 P.3d 90 (Wash. 2018). “020 (the purpose of the aquatic lands statutes "is to articulate a management philosophy to guide the exercise of the state's ownership interest and the exercise of the department's management authority").”
Pope Res., LP v. Dep't of Nat. Res. (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 79.105.010; see also RCW 79.105.020(the purpose of the aquatic lands statutes "is to articulate a management philosophy to guide the exercise of the state's ownership interest and the exercise of the department's management authority").”
North Quinault Props., Llc v. State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Regarding the second basis, Properties LLC fails to indicate with requisite specificity the duty it requests the State perform.”
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.