Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.67
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.67.310 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Every city or town may permit connections with any of its sewers, either directly or indirectly, from property beyond its limits, upon such terms, conditions and payments as may be prescribed by ordinance, which may be required by the city or town to be evidenced by a written agreement between the city or town and the owner of the property to be served by the connecting sewer.
If any such agreement is made and filed with the county auditor of the county in which said property is located, it shall constitute a covenant running with the land and the agreements and covenants therein shall be binding on the owner and all persons subsequently acquiring any right, title or interest in or to said property.
If the terms and conditions of the ordinance or of the agreement are not kept and performed, or the payments made, as required, the city or town may disconnect the sewer and for that purpose may at any time enter upon any public street or road or upon said property.
[ 1965 c 7 s 35.67.310. Prior: 1941 c 75 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 9354-19.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1964–2007 · leading case: Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yakima Cnty. (West Valley) Fire Prot. Dist. No. 12 v. City of Yakima, 858 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 11× “Under RCW 35.67.310, which provides that a city "may permit connections with any of its sewers .”
Nolte v. City of Olympia, 982 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “3 Each further required that every UEA contain a [p]rovision that, prior to connection of any new dwelling or structure to the extended sewer [or water] system, payments be made to the City pursuant to RCW 35.67.310[ 4 ] in an amount equal to those fees calculated under Title 15…”
Mt Dev., LLC v. City of Renton, 165 P.3d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 11 The city responds that it is not the exclusive provider, and that in any case, it is allowed by statute to place conditions upon provision of sewer service outside its borders, that those conditions need not be directly related to its capacity to provide service, and that…”
MT Dev., LLC v. City of Renton, 140 Wash. App. 422 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶11 The city responds that it is not the exclusive provider and that, in any case, it is allowed by statute to place conditions upon provision of sewer service outside its borders, that those conditions need not be directly related to its capacity to provide service, and that…”
State Ex Rel. Frese v. City of Normandy Park, 392 P.2d 207 (Wash. 1964). “Appellants argue that, while the City can enter into the contract, the Sewer District cannot provide for sewer facilities for users outside the City boundaries without first having a contract with the owner of the property to be served, as provided in RCW 35.67.310. Having…”
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.