Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.92.070 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When the governing body of a city or town deems it advisable that the city or town purchase, acquire, or construct any such public utility, or make any additions and betterments thereto or extensions thereof, it shall provide therefor by ordinance, which shall specify and adopt the system or plan proposed, and declare the estimated cost thereof, as near as may be, and the ordinance shall be submitted for ratification or rejection by majority vote of the voters of the city or town at a general or special election.
(1) No submission shall be necessary:
(a) When the work proposed is an addition to, or betterment of, extension of, or an increased water supply for existing waterworks, or an addition, betterment, or extension of an existing system or plant of any other public utility;
(b) When in the charter of a city a provision has been adopted authorizing the corporate authorities thereof to provide by ordinance for acquiring, opening, or operating any of such public utilities; or
(c) When in the judgment of the corporate authority, the public health is being endangered by the discharge of raw or untreated sewage into any body of water and the danger to the public health may be abated by the construction and maintenance of a sewage disposal plant.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, submission to the voters shall be necessary if:
(a) The project or work may produce electricity for sale in excess of present or future needs of the water system;
(b) The city or town does not own or operate an electric utility system;
(c) The work involves an ownership greater than twenty-five percent in a new water supply project combined with an electric generation facility; and
(d) The combined facility has an installed capacity in excess of five megawatts.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, submission to the voters shall be necessary to make extensions to a public utility which would expand the previous service capacity by fifty percent or more, where such increased service capacity is financed by the issuance of general obligation bonds.
(4) Thirty days' notice of the election shall be given in the official newspaper of the city or town, by publication at least once each week in the paper during such time.
(5) When a proposition has been adopted, or in the cases where no submission is necessary, the corporate authorities of the city or town may proceed forthwith to purchase, construct, and acquire the public utility or make additions, betterments, and extensions thereto and to make payment therefor.
[ 1987 c 145 s 1. Prior: 1985 c 445 s 11; 1985 c 444 s 3; 1965 c 7 s 35.92.070; prior: 1941 c 147 s 1; 1931 c 53 s 2; 1909 c 150 s 2; 1901 c 85 s 1; 1897 c 112 s 2; 1893 c 8 s 2; 1891 c 141 s 1; 1890 p 520 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 9489. Formerly RCW 80.40.070.]

Notes:

Intent—Construction—Severability—1985 c 444: See notes following RCW 35.92.010.
Elections: Title 29A RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1972–2006 · leading case: City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 138 P.3d 943 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “030 and RCW 35.92.070. RCW 35.41.030. [5] *950 ¶ 25 Such revenue bonds may be sold in any manner and for any price " the legislative body " of any city or town deems to be for the best interest of the city or town.”
City of Sequim v. Malkasian, 157 Wash. 2d 251 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “030 and RCW 35.92.070. RCW 35-.41.030. 5 ¶25 Such revenue bonds may be sold in any manner and for any price “the legislative body” of any city or town deems to be for the best interest of the city or town.”
Earle M. Jorgensen Co. v. City of Seattle, 665 P.2d 1328 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 4× “Those safeguards consisted of: (1) statutory standards for water rates; (2) comprehensive regulation of water system financing by RCW 35.92.070 et seq.; (3) judicial power to set aside discriminatory, arbitrary, and unreasonable rates; and (4) the right of nonresidents to…”
State Ex Rel. Guthrie v. City of Richland, 494 P.2d 990 (Wash. 1972). · cites it 5× “The respondents successfully contended in the superior court that this provision conflicts with RCW 35.92.070. They further argue, in support of the judgment, that the ordinance in question is an exercise of the administrative power of the city council, rather than its…”
King Cnty. Water Dist. No. 54 v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 554 P.2d 1060 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “The legislature has imposed a standard of uniformity of water rates for the same class of customers or service.”
King Cnty. v. Taxpayers of King Cnty., 949 P.2d 1260 (Wash. 1997). “A statute, RCW 35.92.070, did not require voter approval for proposed additions once the voters had approved the initial acquisition of the utility.”
King Cnty. v. Taxpayers of King Cnty., 949 P.2d 1260 (Wash. 1997). “A statute, RCW 35.92.070, did not require voter approval for proposed additions once the voters had approved the initial acquisition of the utility.”
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.