Public Utility District No. 1 v. State, 182 Wash. 2d 519

Background

PUD sought an 11.6-mile easement across DNR‑managed school trust lands to construct a higher‑capacity Pateros–Twisp transmission line to improve reliability and capacity in Methow Valley.
The lands are held in trust for common schools, leased for cattle grazing, and generate modest annual revenue for the trust.
After an extended EIS process and litigation over environmental review, PUD’s preferred route required access across these school lands; PUD applied for easements and, after years of delay, filed a condemnation petition.
Conservation Northwest (CNW) moved to intervene to challenge PUD’s authority to condemn; the trial court granted limited intervention under CR 24(b).
The trial court and Court of Appeals held PUD was statutorily authorized to condemn a right of way through school trust lands and that the grazing use did not bar condemnation because PUD’s use was compatible; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	PUD’s Argument	DNR/CNW’s Argument	Held
Whether CNW could intervene to challenge PUD’s authority to condemn	Permissive intervention improper because RCW 8.12.120 limits parties to those with compensable property interests	CNW may intervene under court rules to challenge condemnor’s authority even without a compensable interest	Trial court did not abuse discretion: CNW permissively intervened under CR 24(b) on the limited issue of PUD’s authority
Whether RCW 54.16.050 authorizes PUD to condemn school trust lands	Statute’s term “school lands” includes lands held in trust; statute expressly authorizes PUDs to condemn such lands for transmission lines	Argues school trust lands are effectively exempt from condemnation absent special protection	RCW 54.16.050 expressly authorizes public utility districts to condemn rights‑of‑way through school trust lands
Whether the present use (grazing/public trust use) precludes condemnation under the prior public use doctrine	Even if power exists, condemnation is permissible where proposed use is compatible and does not destroy or substantially interfere with existing public use	Present public use (grazing / habitat values) prevents condemnation or at least requires deference to DNR; factual issues exist about compatibility	Prior public use doctrine does not automatically bar condemnation; because PUD’s proposed easement is compatible with DNR’s grazing use, condemnation may proceed; court affirmed summary disposition on compatibility (but one justice would remand for findings)
Whether condemnation of an easement violates constitutional or fiduciary trust duties	Condemnation of easements (not fee) and payment of full market value satisfies constitutional and enabling‑act constraints; Congress and precedent permit taking with compensation	Condemnation breaches State’s fiduciary duties and constitutional protections for school lands; DNR approval required	Condemnation of an easement through school trust lands is consistent with the Washington Constitution, the federal enabling act, and the State’s fiduciary duties when full market value is paid

Key Cases Cited

City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 49 Wn.2d 781 (Wash. 1957) (actions challenging scope of condemnor’s authority are distinct from in rem condemnation actions)
State v. Superior Court, 91 Wash. 454 (Wash. 1916) (distinguishes state proprietary vs. governmental capacity and authority to condemn sovereign lands)
Roberts v. City of Seattle, 63 Wash. 573 (Wash. 1911) (city may condemn strip of university/school land where taking does not impair remaining use)
City of Tacoma v. State, 121 Wash. 448 (Wash. 1922) (condenser may proceed where proposed use does not destroy existing public use)
State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Superior Court, 36 Wash. 381 (Wash. 1904) (strict construction required when one public entity seeks to condemn state trust lands)
Lassen v. Arizona, 385 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1967) (federal precedent that state may use school lands for other public uses provided trust is compensated)