Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.40
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.40.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter, unless specifically defined otherwise or unless the context indicates otherwise:
"Commission" shall mean the Washington utilities and transportation commission;
"Committee" shall mean the oil and gas conservation committee established by *RCW 78.52.020;
"Natural gas" shall mean gas either in the earth in its original state or after the same has been produced by removal therefrom of component parts not essential to its use for light and fuel;
"Natural gas company" shall mean every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership or person authorized to do business in this state and engaged in the transportation, distribution, or underground storage of natural gas;
"Underground reservoir" shall mean any subsurface sand, strata, formation, aquifer, cavern or void whether natural or artificially created, suitable for the injection and storage of natural gas therein and the withdrawal of natural gas therefrom;
"Underground storage" shall mean the process of injecting and storing natural gas within and withdrawing natural gas from an underground reservoir: PROVIDED, The withdrawal of gas from an underground reservoir shall not be deemed a taking or producing within the terms of RCW 82.04.100.
[ 1963 c 201 s 2.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 78.52.020 was repealed by 1994 sp.s. c 9 s 869, effective July 1, 1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (1958).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320 (1958). · cites it 4× “The State and those Directors answered, and also filed a cross-complaint again reviving the objections previously made by the Directors in their earlier cross-complaint and alleging further that the project would interfere with navigation of the Cowlitz River in violation of…”
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 307 P.2d 567 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 4× “They alleged: (a) that the Cowlitz project would interfere with public navigation on the Cowlitz river, which the city is prohibited from doing under the provisions of RCW 80.40.010; (b) that appellant had not obtained an extension of time beyond December 31, 1955, to commence…”
Hutton v. Martin, 252 P.2d 581 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 2× “RCW 80.40.010). As last amended in 1947 (Rem.”
Kaul v. City of Chehalis, 277 P.2d 352 (Wash. 1954). · cites it 2× “RCW 80.40.010]. Russell v. Grandview, 39 Wn.”
Faxe v. City of Grandview, 294 P.2d 402 (Wash. 1956). · cites it 2× “Did Grandview, in enacting such ordinance, breach its statutory duty to fix “just and reasonable” rates for such service? This court has not had occasion to construe or apply the term “just and reasonable,” as used in RCW 80.”
State Ex Rel. Haas v. Pomeroy, 308 P.2d 684 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “RCW 80.40.010], as the relator contends, or by § 1, chapter 231, Laws of 1953, p.”
City of Seattle v. State, 338 P.2d 126 (Wash. 1959). · cites it 2× “030 and RCW 80.40.010. The latter act expressly authorizes the condemnation of any “public or navigable lake or watercourse, surface or ground” for waterworks purposes.”
Phinney Bay Water Dist. v. City of Bremerton, 362 P.2d 358 (Wash. 1961). · cites it 2× “533 (RCW 80.40.010), is in contravention of Art.”
City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 262 P.2d 214 (Wash. 1953). “RCW 80.40.010 et seq. ], incorporated cities or towns are authorized and empowered to erect and build dams or other works across or at the outlet "of any lake or water course in this state.”
Geneva Water Corp. v. City of Bellingham, 532 P.2d 1156 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “) RCW 80.40.010, Laws of 1951, ch. 252, § 1, p.”
King Cnty. v. City of Seattle, 414 P.2d 1016 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “010, and other statutes to which our attention has been directed, we do not find that the legislature has expressly authorized a municipal corporation to condemn state-owned land previously dedicated to a public use; hence, we conclude that the city of Tacoma has not been…”
West Terrace Golf LLC v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “By then, the 1890 law was codified at former RCW 80.40.010. See id. 2 These two laws remain codified as RCW 35.”
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.