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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.92.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A city or town may enter into a firm contract with any outside municipality, community, corporation, or person, for furnishing them with water without regard to whether said water shall be considered as surplus or not and regardless of the source from which such water is obtained, which contract may fix the terms upon which the outside distribution systems will be installed and the rates at which and the manner in which payment shall be made for the water supplied or for the service rendered.
[ 1965 c 7 s 35.92.200. Prior: 1961 c 125 s 1; 1957 c 288 s 8; 1933 ex.s. c 17 s 3; RRS s 9502-3. Cf. 1917 c 12 s 1. Formerly RCW 80.40.200.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Scott Paper Co. v. City of Anacortes, 578 P.2d 1292 (Wash. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Scott Paper Co. v. City of Anacortes, 578 P.2d 1292 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 2× “Appellant State of Washington points to RCW 35.92.200, which specifically authorizes cities to contract for the sale of water outside their boundaries, as evidence that the City had no authority to make such a contract with customers within its boundaries.”
City of Tacoma v. City of Bonney Lake, 269 P.3d 1017 (Wash. 2012). “Tacoma has broad discretion in setting its rates, see RCW 35.92.200, which means the charge can take many forms.”
Nolte v. City of Olympia, 982 P.2d 659 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 35.92.200 provides as to water: A city or town may enter into a firm contract with any outside municipality, community, corporation, or person, for furnishing them with water without regard to whether said water shall be considered as surplus or not and regardless of the…”
People for Pres. & Dev. of Five Mile Prairie v. City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Are the covenants arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to public policy? A city may contract with persons outside its limits for furnishing them with water, "which contract may fix the terms upon which the outside distribution systems will be installed .”
West Terrace Golf LLC v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “The 1917 law expressly allowed cities and towns to extend utilities beyond their corporate limits, but it subjected service outside corporate limits to the regulation of the Public Service Commission.”
People v. The City of Spokane, 755 P.2d 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Are the covenants arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to public policy? [4] A city may contract with persons outside its limits for furnishing them with water, "which contract may fix the terms upon which the outside distribution systems will be installed .”
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.