Property owners (residential, commercial and industrial) in Palo Alto, 90% of Mountain View, 60% of Los Altos Hills and Stanford pay the State Water Project taxes every year but receive no State Water!!  Hard to believe but the details are here


Estimated yearly taxes you paid for no water
Palo Alto $1,731,000
Mountain View (90% residents pay) $1,216,000
Los Altos Hills (60% residents pay) $252,000
Total $3,199,000

This lower cost water could also be blended or used as backup in the drought. State Water, which is the drinking water for the rest of the Water District, costs much less than the current water supply.  

The Water District has stonewalled taxpayers for years and years on the tax.  We only receive, at best, minimal other benefits in lieu of State Water. In summary, we subsidize other areas of the District without getting material local benefits.  

One of the action items I have pursued as President of the Purissima Hills Water District is accelerate legal research into overturning the unfair tax. I helped get Palo Alto back the discussions, reached out to Mountain View and Stanford to put together a coalition again the unfair tax.

These taxes will go up considerably if a new state water bond passes!  Right now the average $1m home pays $72 per year, this likely more than double if the water bond passes.  The Water District is now saying that this is rise to $120 per year if not higher without a vote of the people.

I will advocate that the affected areas receive some of the following for taxes:

  1. Deliver State Water Project water
    1. Wheel water thru California Water Services system to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos Hills and Stanford
    2. Build pipeline down median from Loyola Corners to Foothills Expressway SFPUC pipelines
    3. Water can be used when communities are over allocations, for blending and backup
  2. Enhanced water conservation funds;
  3. Additional funding for installation of recycled water infrastructure;
  4. Funding of local non-profits;
    1. Improving grant application and associated processes;
    2. Amount of paperwork vs. size of project
    3. Reporting requirements vs. size of project
    4. Restoration and stewardship should be 3 – 5 years grants, not 1 year grant
  5. Extra flood control resources
  6. Get existing projects on the books actually built;
  7. Additional creek funding;
  8. Actual cash rebates; or
  9. Cumulative removal of these taxes from the property tax bills.


Actual Property Tax Bill

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.



get updates