Finds that public utility districts that own utility poles and that are exempt from the pole attachment provisions under chapter 80.54 RCW have sought to charge multiple attachment fees on the same pole and have used attachment rates, terms, and conditions that are inconsistent with the pole attachment provisions under chapter 80.54 RCW and federal communications commission regulations.

Finds that these practices: (1) Are inconsistent with the policy of the state;

(2) Do not advance the efficiency or availability of telecommunications facilities in rural or urban areas;

(3) Do not encourage the introduction of competition, making the use of these essential facilities difficult for providers of telecommunications and cable television services; and

(4) Result in excessive litigation costs, the courts being the only recourse available to licensees who do not agree to contract terms.