Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.21.210 (2026)

Sewerage, drainage, and water supply

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any city or town shall have power to provide for the sewerage, drainage, and water supply thereof, and to establish, construct, and maintain a system or systems of sewers and drains and a system or systems of water supply, within or without the corporate limits of such city or town, and to control, regulate, and manage the same. In addition, any city or town may, as part of maintaining a system of sewers and drains or a system of water supply, or independently of such a system or systems, participate in and expend revenue on cooperative watershed management actions, including watershed management partnerships under RCW 39.34.210 and other intergovernmental agreements, for purposes of water supply, water quality, and water resource and habitat protection and management.

[ 2003 c 327 s 11; 1965 c 7 s 35.21.210. Prior: 1911 c 98 s 3; RRS s 9354.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—2003 c 327: See note following RCW 39.34.190.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1960–2001 · leading case: Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 23 P.3d 477 (Wash. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 23 P.3d 477 (Wash. 2001). “The issue here, though, is whether legally requiring owners of vacant, uninhabited lots to pay for public utility services that they have no connection to and that alleviate no burden to which they contribute is a "regulatory fee" or a tax. [29] Br. of Resp'ts at 6-7. The City…”

Samis Land Co. v. City of Soap Lake, 143 Wash. 2d 798 (Wash. 2001). “The City cites various statutes authorizing cities of second class like Soap Lake, inter aha, (a) to establish and regulate city utility systems, such as RCW 35.21.210 and RCW 35.23.440(22) and (35); and (b) to charge “customers” who “use” such systems, such as RCW 35.”

Brookens v. City of Yakima, 550 P.2d 30 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “This decision may indirectly extend the police power of the City beyond its corporate limits by allowing the withholding of water to compel compliance with these land use regulations. Even so, we cannot compel the City to contract, pursuant to RCW 35.”

Mun. of Metro. Seattle v. City of Seattle, 357 P.2d 863 (Wash. 1960). “RCW 35.21.210 provides: “Any city or town shall have power to provide for the sewerage, drainage and water supply thereof, and to establish, construct and maintain a system or systems of sewers and drains and a system or systems of water supply, within or without the corporate…”

Vine Street Com. P'ship v. City of Marysville, 98 Wash. App. 541 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “See RCW 35.21.210, .67.310, .91.020, .92.010; see also RCW 35.”

Berglund v. City of Tacoma, 423 P.2d 922 (Wash. 1967). “RCW 35.21.210 reads: Any city or town shall have power to provide for the sewerage, drainage and water supply thereof, and to establish, construct and maintain a system or systems of sewers and drains and a system or systems of water supply, within or without the corporate…”

Vine St. Com. Ptnshp. v. Marysville, 989 P.2d 1238 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “See RCW 35.21.210, -.67.310, -.91.020, -.92.010; see also RCW 35.”

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.