Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 54.16.030 (2026)

Water and irrigation works

✓ 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, purchase, condemn and purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate waterworks and irrigation plants and systems, within or without its limits, for the purpose of furnishing the district, and the inhabitants thereof, and of the county in which the district is located, and any other persons including public and private corporations within or without the limits of the district or the county, with an ample supply of water for all purposes, public and private, including water power, domestic use, and irrigation, with full and exclusive authority to sell and regulate and control the use, distribution, and price thereof.

[ 1999 c 154 s 1; 1998 c 49 s 1; 1955 c 390 s 4. Prior: 1945 c 143 s 1(c); 1931 c 1 s 6(c); Rem. Supp. 1945 s 11610(c).]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1986–2004 · leading case: Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 714 P.2d 1163 (Wash. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 714 P.2d 1163 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 3× “One is RCW 54.16.030, which provides in part: A [public utility] district may construct, purchase, condemn and purchase, acquire, add to, maintain, conduct, and operate water works .”

Margola Assocs. v. City of Seattle, 854 P.2d 23 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “The court noted the regulatory scheme is expressly authorized in RCW 54.16.030. The connection fee simply reflected a shifting to the user of expenses incurred by the system on the user's account.”

Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, 94 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “2d 1163 (1986) (" Hillis Homes II "), a case decided before the development of the three-part Covell test, the Court found a water system connection charge to be valid as part of a plan to "`regulate and control the use [and] distribution' of water" (quoting RCW 54.16.030). This…”

Sundquist Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 965 P.2d 1148 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “080 and RCW 54.16.030, which is essentially the same as RCW 54.”

In Re the Recall of Shipman, 886 P.2d 1127 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 54.16.030. The adequacy of the data, the accounting system used to evaluate that data, and the question of whether to follow experts’ recommendations are matters of judgment within that discretion.”

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.