Wash. Rev. Code » Title 54 · Chapter 54.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 54.04.020 (2026)

Districts authorized

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Municipal corporations, to be known as public utility districts, are hereby authorized for the purposes of chapter 1, Laws of 1931 and may be established within the limits of the state of Washington, as provided herein.
[ 1931 c 1 s 2; RRS s 11606.]

Notes:

Purpose—1931 c 1: "The purpose of this act is to authorize the establishment of public utility districts to conserve the water and power resources of the State of Washington for the benefit of the people thereof, and to supply public utility service, including water and electricity for all uses." [ 1931 c 1 s 1.]
Severability—Construction—1931 c 1: "Adjudication of invalidity of any section, clause or part of a section of this act shall not impair or otherwise affect the validity of the act as a whole or any other part thereof.
The rule of strict construction shall have no application to this act, but the same shall be liberally construed, in order to carry out the purposes and objects for which this act is intended.
When this act comes in conflict with any provision, limitation or restriction in any other law, this act shall govern and control." [ 1931 c 1 s 11.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: Blocktree Props., LLC v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty. Wash., Mun. Corp., 380 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (E.D. Wash. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blocktree Props., LLC v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Grant Cnty. Wash., Mun. Corp., 380 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (E.D. Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “Washington Public Utility Rate-Setting Laws The parties dispute whether Blocktree is likely to succeed on the merits of their rate discrimination claim under Washington law.”
Matter of Maxfield, 945 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1997). “2d 793 (1987); see RCW 54.04.020. So long as Childress was acting in his official governmental capacity, his actions invoke the protections of article I, section 7.”
City of Seattle v. State, 965 P.2d 619 (Wash. 1998). “” RCW 54.04.020. The Department has made no res judicata argument with regard to the ruling of the Electrical Board, although it did suggest during oral argument that we should accord the same weight to the Board’s ruling as to the Department’s interpretation of the statute at…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). “As a public utility district, PUD exercises its eminent domain powers “pursuant to resolution of the commission and conducted in the same manner and by the same procedure as is provided for the exercise of that power by cities and towns of the state . . . .” 12 RCW 54.16.020.…”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Maxfield, 133 Wash. 2d 332 (Wash. 1997). “2d 793 (1987); see RCW 54.04.020. So long as Childress was acting in his official governmental capacity, his actions invoke the protections of article I, section 7.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 of Pac. Cnty., Mun. Corp. v. Comcast of Wash. Iv, Inc., 438 P.3d 1212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “We affirm the trial court with respect to the District's choice of data and inputs, but reverse the trial court's interpretation of the language set forth in RCW 54.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. Comcast of Washington IV, Inc., 336 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “I ¶4 The District, which is organized as a municipal corporation pursuant to RCW 54.04.020, is a consumer-owned utility providing services in Pacific County, Washington.”
Hite v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2, 772 P.2d 481 (Wash. 1989). “2d 633 (1969); RCW 54.04.020. 4 Port of Seattle v. State Utils.”
Washington Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 459 P.2d 633 (Wash. 1969). “RCW 54.04.020. Plaintiff contends that, since the PUD as a municipal corporation distributes and sells electricity free from regulation by any regulatory body maintained by the state, it is in law a monopoly and in the public interest ought to be subject to the Consumer…”
City v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 965 P.2d 619 (Wash. 1998). “" RCW 54.04.020. [3] The Department has made no res judicata argument with regard to the ruling of the Electrical Board, although it did suggest during oral argument that we should accord the same weight to the Board's ruling as to the Department's interpretation of the statute…”
Roza Irrigation Dist. v. State, 497 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1972). “Examples are RCW 54.04.020, Municipal corporations, to be known as public utility districts, are hereby authorized .”
Shoulberg v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 280 P.3d 491 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “lities herein authorized: PROVIDED, that in case it does not own or operate all such utilities it may be included within such public utility district for the purpose of establishing or operating therein such utilities as it does not own or operate: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That no…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.