PDA

View Full Version : WPPA Port Management Agreement (PMA) Handbook


Chief
07-02-2007, 09:48 AM
http://www.washingtonports.org/downloads/pmahandbook.pdf

Adobe Acrobat required, 114 pages. Also fascinating reading...

This document is a publication of the Washington Public Ports Association. It was a collaborative effort of the
WPPA Aquatic Lands Committee, chaired by Jim Darling, Executive Director, Port of Bellingham. The committee
is staffed by Eric Johnson, WPPA Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs, who led the development and drafting
of this document.

The Department of Natural Resources participated in reviewing this handbook. WPPA particularly acknowledges
and appreciates the contributions of Don Olmsted, Port Program Manager, Department of Natural Resources,
for his commitment to the partnership between ports and the department.

Port districts have been given the legal authority to manage
certain aquatic lands that are owned by the state. These
aquatic properties abut uplands that are owned, leased or
managed by the port. The details of this management responsibility
are set forth in a Port Management Agreement (PMA).

The PMA is a document signed by both the port and the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR).

The port manages these state-owned aquatic lands using the
state’s aquatic land management laws and regulations, in
addition to the regular laws that govern port operations. The
port and the DNR must work together to blend these state
laws and regulations with the port district’s powers and responsibilities.

This requires the port to be aware of two basic
concepts:

• The port has taken on the responsibility as the land
manager for the people of the state of Washington.
The port must strive to provide a balance of public
benefits for all citizens of the state.

• The general goals of state-wide aquatic land management
are to: encourage direct public use and access,
foster water-dependent uses, ensure environmental
protection, and utilize renewable resources. Generating
revenue consistent with these goals is considered
to be a public benefit.

These responsibilities are not a new concept in port management.
The very idea of creating port districts sprang from the
desire, almost one hundred years ago, to give the public a
tool to buy back and control the harbors that had been sold
to private interests.
i

karma
07-02-2007, 09:54 AM
Dear Chief, still not buying the blanket and the environmental impacts that this will bring. Will you respect me in the morning? :-X

Chief
07-02-2007, 10:00 AM
You could not possibly have read this document that fast.

karma
07-02-2007, 10:37 AM
Well Chief, some of us are more intuned to what different entities do do and have been there done that, many moons ago?? Not news to some of us??

Chief
07-02-2007, 11:23 AM
So let me see if I understand you.

You seem to be saying that you already know what you want to know about this, nothing is going to change your mind, and you will not be bothered to even read what this (or any other) of the publications I posted has to say about your concerns.

Does that about cover it??

sensibilist
07-02-2007, 01:39 PM
Well, you pretty summed it up Chief for me and it does cover it. I have NEVER voted for ANY tax increase as they ALWAYS have the propensity to subvert the will of the voters anyway, and find some way to rob the taxpayers of their money. Besides, why only property owners?

As I've said before, I don't want to be their investor and what is my annual return on my investment expected to be anyway?

I sure hope you're under contract with the Port, like Cathy McDonald is....may as well make some bucks.

Like Momma said: NO means NO!

Sorry 'bout their luck...or perhaps mine. My bet is that people are disgusted about getting their intentions whored, and getting nickeled and dimed to death with little or no discernible results in taking care of in a fiduciary manner, the basics of governance: the health, education, welfare, and safety of citizens.

Don't worry, once it fails, they'll be at the legislature next year to subvert the voters yet again.