Opinion ID: 4577342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sewer district authority–former Title 56 RCW

Text: First, we analyze the provisions within former Title 56 RCW to determine whether and when districts generally can annex territory within another jurisdiction. Sewer districts like Ronald and Olympic are governed by former Title 56 RCW and are authorized to provide sewer service and perform functions related to such operation within their service area. Former RCW 56.04.020 (1974); former RCW 56.20.015 (1983); former RCW 56.08.010 (1985). Sewer districts may also provide sewer service to properties beyond their geographic boundaries. Former RCW 56.08.060 (1981). Notably, sewer districts have the authority to serve multiple counties. Former RCW 56.04.020 (sewer districts “may include within their boundaries portions or all of one or more counties, incorporated cities, or towns or other political subdivisions”). But when a sewer district includes territory in more than one county, approval is needed from the county officer or board. Former RCW 7 No. 97599-0 56.02.055 (1982). Sewer districts may also serve areas within other districts—by agreement. A sewer district may enter into contracts with any county, city, town, sewer district, . . . [and may] exercise sewer district powers . . . in areas within or without the limits of the district: Provided, That if any such area is located within another existing district duly authorized to exercise sewer district powers in such area, then sewer service may not be so provided by contract or otherwise without the consent by resolution of the board of commissioners of such other district. Former RCW 56.08.060 (emphasis added). Consistent with these statutes is the underlying policy that absent permission, districts may not infringe on areas within another district, which we recognized in Alderwood Water District v. Pope & Talbot, Inc., 62 Wn.2d 319, 322, 382 P.2d 639 (1963). In Alderwood, we interpreted former RCW 57.08.010 (1959) (permitting water districts to serve areas outside their own boundaries) and former RCW 57.04.070 (1929) (“‘no lesser water district shall ever be created within the limits in whole or in part of any water district’”). 62 Wn.2d at 321-22. We reasoned that a water district could not serve areas that were within another district unless the area was first withdrawn from the original district or the original district refused to serve it. Alderwood, 62 Wn.2d at 322-23. We noted that water districts could provide services unilaterally only to areas outside its boundaries that were not within another district. 8 No. 97599-0 Here, the language of the applicable sewer district statutes parallels the language of the statute interpreted in Alderwood, former RCW 57.04.070. Sewer districts may provide service in areas within another district with the permission of the original district. Former RCW 56.08.060. Additionally, “no lesser sewer district shall ever be created within the limits in whole or in part of any other sewer district, except as provided in RCW 56.36.060 and 36.94.420.” Former RCW 56.04.070 (1985). Ronald asserts that Alderwood does not control under these circumstances because the transfer annexation process of former RCW 36.94.420 is exempt from this general prohibition, indicating that a district may unilaterally annex territory within another district. However, as the Court of Appeals reasoned, former RCW 56.08.060 mandates that overlapping service “by contract or otherwise” is permitted only with the consent of the original district. Altogether these provisions establish that if a district cannot unilaterally serve an area within another district without permission, it follows that a district cannot unilaterally annex an area within another district without permission. Ronald could not have unilaterally annexed Point Wells because it was already within Olympic’s boundary, and neither Olympic nor Snohomish County consented to Ronald’s annexation of Point Wells. Where a sewer district seeks to annex a territory within another district, the territory must first be withdrawn from the original district. Former RCW 56.28.010 9 No. 97599-0 (1953). Once it is withdrawn, the registered voters within the territory can petition for annexation into another district. Former RCW 56.24.070 (1985). The annexation will be approved either by the county legislative authority or by election. Former RCW 56.24.140 (1967); former RCW 56.24.090 (1967). An annexation that altered the corporate boundaries of a district would also be subject to review by the BRB. Former RCW 56.02.055-.070 (1982). In this case, this process was not followed, and Olympic and Snohomish County were not involved in the annexation process. In particular, Olympic did not consent to the annexation of Point Wells. Within their borders, sewer districts possess the primary authority to operate and regulate a sewer system. Former RCW 56.04.020; former RCW 36.94.170 (1971). A district may relinquish its authority only by written consent or a comprehensive plan amendment and approval by the BRB. Former RCW 36.94.170. Here, in response to the Seattle Water District’s request to provide water service to Point Wells, Olympic gave King County permission to serve the area permissively by contract. At most, even if this permission extended beyond water service and included the provision of sewer service, it did not constitute a relinquishment of Olympic’s primary sewerage authority. Without Olympic’s relinquishment, Ronald and King County had no right to unilaterally annex Point Wells. 10 No. 97599-0