Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.55.060 (2026)

Limitations upon grants

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) Any person constructing or operating any utility on or along a county road shall be liable to the county for all necessary expense incurred in restoring the county road to a suitable condition for travel.

(2) No franchise shall be granted for a period of longer than fifty years.

(3) No exclusive franchise or privilege shall be granted.

(4) The facilities of the holder of any such franchise shall be removed at the expense of the holder thereof, to some other location on such county road in the event it is to be constructed, altered, or improved or becomes a primary state highway and such removal is reasonably necessary for the construction, alteration, or improvement thereof.

(5) Counties shall, in the predesign phase of construction projects involving relocation of sewer and/or water facilities, consult with public utilities operating water/sewer systems in order to coordinate design.

[ 2007 c 31 s 6; 1963 c 4 s 36.55.060. Prior: 1961 c 55 s 5; prior: 1937 c 187 s 38, part; RRS s 6450-38, part.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1998–2019 · leading case: Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 997 P.2d 915 (Wash. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 997 P.2d 915 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 13× “That statute, in pertinent part, reads as follows: The facilities of the holder of any such franchise shall be removed at the expense of the holder thereof, to some other location on such county road in the event it is to be constructed, altered, or improved or becomes a primary…”

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 965 P.2d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “[3] Sundquist contends the trial court misconstrued RCW 36.55.060, RCW 54.26.040, and RCW 54.”

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. PUD, 997 P.2d 915 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 14× “That statute, in pertinent part, reads as follows: *918 The facilities of the holder of any such franchise shall be removed at the expense of the holder thereof, to some other location on such county road in the event it is to be constructed, altered, or improved or becomes a…”

King Cnty. v. King Cnty. Water Dists. (Wash. 2019). “Although one statute provides that a franchisee is "liable to the county for all necessary expense incurred in restoring the county road to a suitable condition for travel," RCW 36.55.060(1), no statute limits the county's ability to seek other charges in addition to this.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.55.060(1) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.55.060(4) — 3 cases

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 997 P.2d 915 (Wash. 2000). “That statute, in pertinent part, reads as follows: The facilities of the holder of any such franchise shall be removed at the expense of the holder thereof, to some other location on such county road in the event it is to be constructed, altered, or improved or becomes a primary…”

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 965 P.2d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “[3] Sundquist contends the trial court misconstrued RCW 36.55.060, RCW 54.26.040, and RCW 54.”

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. PUD, 997 P.2d 915 (Wash. 2000). “That statute, in pertinent part, reads as follows: *918 The facilities of the holder of any such franchise shall be removed at the expense of the holder thereof, to some other location on such county road in the event it is to be constructed, altered, or improved or becomes a…”

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.