Wash. Rev. Code » Title 54 · Chapter 54.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 54.16.020 (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 district may construct, condemn and purchase, purchase, acquire, lease, add to, maintain, operate, develop, and regulate all lands, property, property rights, water, water rights, dams, ditches, flumes, aqueducts, pipes and pipe lines, water power, leases, easements, rights-of-way, franchises, plants, plant facilities, and systems for generating electric energy by water power, steam, or other methods; plants, plant facilities, and systems for developing, conserving, and distributing water for domestic use and irrigation; buildings, structures, poles and pole lines, and cables and conduits and any and all other facilities; and may exercise the right of eminent domain to effectuate the foregoing purposes or for the acquisition and damaging of such property and rights, or property of any kind appurtenant thereto, and for the purpose of acquiring the right to make physical connection with plants and plant facilities of all persons and municipalities. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised 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 in the acquisition of like property and property rights. It shall be no defense to a condemnation proceeding that a portion of the electric current generated or sold by the district will be applied to private purposes, if the principal uses intended are public: PROVIDED, That no public utility owned by a city or town shall be condemned, and none shall be purchased without submission of the question to the voters of the utility district. In a condemnation proceeding, the court shall submit to the jury the values placed upon the property by the taxing authority for taxation purposes, and in respect to property, plants, and facilities of persons using public highways for furnishing public service without franchises, shall consider in determining the value thereof the fact that the property, plants, and facilities are subject to be removed from the highways by reason of being so operated without a franchise.
[ 1955 c 390 s 3. Prior: 1945 c 143 s 1(b); 1931 c 1 s 6(b); Rem. Supp. 1945 s 11610(b).]

Notes:

Eminent domain: State Constitution Art. 1 s 16 (Amendment 9).
Eminent domain by cities: Chapter 8.12 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1953–2020 · leading case: Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., LLC, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “RCW 54.16.020. Once an entity with the power of eminent domain makes its initial determination to authorize a condemnation action of private property, the matter moves to the superior court for the condemnation, which involves the court determining public use and necessity,…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 342 P.3d 308 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “RCW 54.16.020. Because we cite to another case involving the city of Tacoma, we refer to this case hereinafter as “Taxpayers of Tacoma” to avoid unnecessary confusion.”
Nucleonics All. v. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys., 677 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “040), condemn properties owned by a public utility (RCW 54.16.020), levy taxes (RCW 54.16.080) and issue general obligation bonds (RCW 54.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington Water Power Co., 262 P.2d 976 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 2× “RCW 54.16.020]. Although there are minor differences in the various procedural statutes, as they apply to the several types of authorities empowered to exercise the right of eminent domain (the statutes are collected in State ex rel.”
Pud v. Naftzi, 151 P.3d 176 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 7× “RCW 54.16.020. Once an entity with the power of eminent domain makes its initial determination to authorize a condemnation action of private property, the matter moves to the superior court for the condemnation, which involves the court determining public use and necessity,…”
Beezer v. City of Seattle, 383 P.2d 895 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 2× “" When, in 1930, the state adopted (by the initiative) the public-utility-district law, it contained, and still does, a provision prohibiting such a district from condemning a public utility owned by a city or town (RCW 54.16.020). In 1933, the legislature made the prohibition…”
Grant Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 2 v. North Am. Foreign Trade Zone Indus., L.L.C., 105 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× ““The right of eminent domain shall be exercised 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.”
Beezer v. City of Seattle, 373 P.2d 796 (Wash. 1962). · cites it 2× “As adopted, it contained, and still does, a provision forbidding a district created thereunder from condemning any public utility owned by a city or town (RCW 54.16.020). In 1933, the legislature made the prohibition work both ways by forbidding any city or town from acquiring…”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Cooper, 421 P.2d 1002 (Wash. 1966). “§ 814 (1964); RCW 54.16.020) and under its federal license, to acquire the fee simple title to the property needed for its project.”
State Ex Rel. Mower v. Sup'r Ct. for Pierce Cty., 260 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1953). “1949, § 6090-35] RCW 54.16.020 [cf. Rem. Supp. 1945, § 11610(b)] Procedure for public utility districts RCW 53.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. State, 174 Wash. App. 793 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶18 The court rejected this statutory argument and concluded that PUD has the express authority to condemn school trust lands under RCW 54.16.020 and .050. The court also rejected the contention that school trust lands cannot be subject to condemnation because they are dedicated…”
Responsible Growth NE Washington v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Responsible Growth argued that the PUD: (1) operated beyond its statutory authority in RCW 54.16.020 when it purchased Parcel No.”
Show all 14 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.