Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.50.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) The legislature finds that:

(a) Regulation of access to the state highway system is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, to preserve the functional integrity of the state highway system, and to promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within the state;

(b) The development of an access management program, in accordance with this chapter, which coordinates land use planning decisions by local governments and investments in the state highway system, will serve to control the proliferation of connections and other access approaches to and from the state highway system. Without such a program, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of this state are at risk, due to the fact that uncontrolled access to the state highway system is a significant contributing factor to the congestion and functional deterioration of the system; and

(c) The development of an access management program in accordance with this chapter will enhance the development of an effective transportation system and increase the traffic-carrying capacity of the state highway system and thereby reduce the incidences of traffic accidents, personal injury, and property damage or loss; mitigate environmental degradation; promote sound economic growth and the growth management goals of the state; reduce highway maintenance costs and the necessity for costly traffic operations measures; lengthen the effective life of transportation facilities in the state, thus preserving the public investment in such facilities; and shorten response time for emergency vehicles.

(2) In furtherance of these findings, all state highways are hereby declared to be controlled access facilities as defined in RCW 47.50.020, except those highways that are defined as limited access facilities in chapter 47.52 RCW.

(3) It is the policy of the legislature that:

(a) The access rights of an owner of property abutting the state highway system are subordinate to the public's right and interest in a safe and efficient highway system; and

(b) Every owner of property which abuts a state highway has a right to reasonable access to that highway, unless such access has been acquired pursuant to chapter 47.52 RCW, but may not have the right of a particular means of access. The right of access to the state highway may be restricted if, pursuant to local regulation, reasonable access can be provided to another public road which abuts the property.

(4) The legislature declares that it is the purpose of this chapter to provide a coordinated planning process for the permitting of access points on the state highway system to effectuate the findings and policies under this section.

(5) Nothing in this chapter shall affect the right to full compensation under section 16, Article I of the state Constitution.

[ 1991 c 202 s 1.]

Notes:

Captions not law—1991 c 202: "Section captions and part headings as used in this act do not constitute any part of the law." [ 1991 c 202 s 22.]

Effective date—1991 c 202: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1991." [ 1991 c 202 s 24.]

Severability—1991 c 202: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1991 c 202 s 25.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Williams Place, LLC v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 348 P.3d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Williams Place, LLC v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 348 P.3d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “See RCW 47.50.010; WAC 468-51-030. The record shows that WSDOT has consistently expressed willingness to grant Williams Place an access permit at that location, provided the connection meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”

Galvis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 167 P.3d 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

Davidson v. Kitsap Cnty., 937 P.2d 1309 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “Davidson argues that the 1991 enactment of RCW 47.50.010 constituted a substantial change of circumstances.”

Galvis v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

Robinett Inv. Co Llc., V. State Of Wa. Dept Of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “RCW 47.50.010(3)(b). But where a new limited-access highway is established by condemnation in an area where no highway previously existed, as occurred here, no easement of access exists to the new facility.”

Williams Place, LLC v. State of Washington, Dep't of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “010(3)(b) and citing RCW 47.50.010(5». Instead, "the legislature recognized an abutting property owner's right to reasonable access and did not intend for the [WSDOT] to apply the statute in a manner that infringes on those rights.”

Iron Gate Partners, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Transp., 27 P.3d 1259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 47.50.010(2). WAC 468-51-030(1) reiterates the same distinction.”

Juhnke v. City of West Richland (E.D. Wash. 2022). “Plaintiffs also seek a judgment, and pre- and post- 5 judgment interest, for the amount of just compensation for the alleged wrongful 6 taking of their properties “pursuant to RCW 8.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 47.50.010(2) — 1 case

Iron Gate Partners, L.L.C. v. Dep't of Transp., 27 P.3d 1259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 47.50.010(2). WAC 468-51-030(1) reiterates the same distinction.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 47.50.010(3)(b) — 6 cases

Williams Place, LLC v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 348 P.3d 797 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 47.50.010; WAC 468-51-030. The record shows that WSDOT has consistently expressed willingness to grant Williams Place an access permit at that location, provided the connection meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.”

Galvis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 167 P.3d 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

Robinett Inv. Co Llc., V. State Of Wa. Dept Of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 47.50.010(3)(b). But where a new limited-access highway is established by condemnation in an area where no highway previously existed, as occurred here, no easement of access exists to the new facility.”

Galvis v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

Williams Place, LLC v. State of Washington, Dep't of Transp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “010(3)(b) and citing RCW 47.50.010(5». Instead, "the legislature recognized an abutting property owner's right to reasonable access and did not intend for the [WSDOT] to apply the statute in a manner that infringes on those rights.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 47.50.010(5) — 4 cases

Galvis v. State, Dept. of Transp., 167 P.3d 584 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

Galvis v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. App. 693 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “See generally RCW 47.50.010. Thus, the HAMA does not cause the loss of access implicated in Fry .”

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.