Could Washington’s conservation director fund a port district’s flood-control project under the 1965 state participation law?

Plain-English summary

In 1965, the Washington Attorney General concluded that the director of conservation could not participate with a port district in a flood-control project under chapter 86.26 RCW. The provision authorizing state participation named several kinds of local government and district, but omitted port districts. (Official opinion)

The AG applied the rule that a statute’s express list of eligible groups excludes unlisted groups. Its answer was limited to participation under the cited chapter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Were port districts included in the flood-control participation list?
No. The AG said the statute listed eligible entities but omitted port districts.

What other districts did the statute name?
The quoted list included flood-control, diking, drainage, irrigation, and soil-conservation districts, among other local entities.

Did the opinion rule on every possible flood-control funding route?
No. It answered the director’s authority under chapter 86.26 RCW.

Background and statutory framework

The conservation director asked whether the state flood-control participation law permitted assistance to a port district. The AG read RCW 86.26.020’s list of eligible local sponsors and found no port district in it.

Citations and references

• The official opinion states: “Port districts are not included in this enumeration.”
• The official opinion states: “the director of conservation is not authorized under chapter 86.26 RCW to participate with port districts in flood control projects.”

Subject

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE ‑- DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ‑- FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ‑- PARTICIPATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES UNDER CHAPTER 86.26 RCW ‑- PORT DISTRICTS EXCLUDED

Source

• Landing page: https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/offices-and-officers-state-department-conservation-flood-control-projects-participation

Original opinion text

Attorney General John J. O'Connell

OFFICES AND OFFICERS ‑- STATE ‑- DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ‑- FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS ‑- PARTICIPATION WITH MUNICIPALITIES UNDER CHAPTER 86.26 RCW ‑- PORT DISTRICTS EXCLUDED.

Under existing state law the director of the department of conservation is not authorized by chapter 86.26 RCW to participate with port districts in flood control projects.

December 28, 1965

Honorable H. Maurice Ahlquist
Director, Department of Conservation
335 General Administration Building
Olympia, Washington

Cite as: AGO 65-66 No. 63

Dear Sir:

By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on a question which we have paraphrased as follows:

Is the director of conservation authorized by chapter 86.26 RCW to participate with port districts in flood control projects?

We answer your question in the negative.

ANALYSIS

In 1951, the legislature of this state by chapter 240, Laws of 1951 (now codified as chapter 86.26 RCW), authorized the director of conservation to assist municipalities and public corporations in carrying out flood control work by furnishing moneys to them from state flood control funds. State participation in the cost of any flood control project is to be provided for by a written memorandum agreement between the director of conservation and the local sponsoring agency. RCW 86.26.100.

You have asked whether the director of conservation is authorized to participate with and assist a port district in a flood control project under chapter 86.26 RCW.

RCW 86.26.020, as amended by § 2, chapter 84, Laws of 1961, provides as follows:

"State participation in flood control construction, maintenance and betterments shall be with corporate [[Orig. Op. Page 2]] municipalities subject to flood conditions, namely, with counties, counties acting jointly, cities, towns, flood control districts, diking or diking improvement districts, drainage and drainage improvement districts, diking and drainage improvement districts, irrigation districts, and soil conservation districts."

One of the familiar doctrines of statutory construction is "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," or the mention of one implies exclusion of another. Ramsay v. Department of Labor and Industries, 36 Wn.2d 410, 413, 218 P.2d 765 (1950); 2 Horack, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 4915 (3rd ed. 1943). In other words, where a provision of an act is expressly stated to apply to named persons or groups, those persons or groups not named are excluded. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co's Appeal, 325 Pa. 535, 191 Atl. 9 (1937);Estate of Pardue, 22 Cal.App. 2d 178, 70 P.2d 678 (1937). In RCW 86.26.020, the legislature has specifically enumerated the types of districts with which the director of conservation may participate. Port districts are not included in this enumeration.

Reading RCW 86.26.020, in light of the aforementioned doctrine, it is our opinion, and you are so advised, that the director of conservation is not authorized under chapter 86.26 RCW to participate with port districts in flood control projects.

We trust the foregoing opinion will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

JOHN J. O'CONNELL
Attorney General

CHARLES B. ROE, JR.
Assistant Attorney General