SB26‑157 Solves the State’s Problem, Not Hartman’s Water Crisis Hartman —A Public Health Failure With No One Showing Up
Barbara Crimond | May 08, 2026 | Comments 0
Here it is, May 6th, and Hartman residents are facing unsafe water. The chlorine has run out, the water smells of bacteria, and no one from the state has responded. This is happening even though residents were pressured to “agree” to abandonment under the claim that doing so would protect water service. This is exactly the public‑health failure the state said Hartman would avoid if residents agreed to be dissolved.
DOLA says they made 35 visits — but never explains why those visits produced no functional governance or water‑system improvements. If the board still collapsed, then one of two things is true: either the support was ineffective, or the state knew the board was failing but did nothing to correct it. Either way, bragging about site visits is not evidence of success. It is evidence of a failed support system. That truth seems to be missing in all of this.
If those visits meant anything, then the state had full knowledge of the tank’s condition — the rusted seams, the open rivets, the structural failure, and the impossibility of maintaining sanitary water. So how do they now explain the state of the water system? How do they justify fines for conditions they witnessed repeatedly? How do they justify pressuring residents into dissolution when they knew the tank could not be made safe? If 35 visits did not result in intervention, repair, or even an accurate public explanation, then the visits were not oversight — they were documentation of a problem the state chose not to address.
The state is presently waiting out SB26‑157 so they don’t have to step in right now — using this time to stall while the water is contaminated. If the state intervened today, it would be acknowledging that Hartman is not abandoned, that the system still requires oversight, and that the assurances given to residents were not accurate. By waiting for the bill to move through the legislature, the state avoids taking immediate responsibility for a public‑health failure happening in real time.
In an effort to protect themselves and other agencies, the state used urgency and fear to steer residents toward dissolution. They used crisis framing to create the impression that dissolution was the only option. But urgency is not inevitability, and fear is not a plan. Urgency means something needs attention; inevitability means there are no choices left. The state presented those two ideas as if they were the same — and they were not. The state did not run out of options; they ran out of excuses. The mere fact that SB26‑157 was drafted is proof that options existed. The choice to draft a bill was not about repairing failed statutory law — it was about protecting institutions from the consequences of their actions and inactions.
Fear has been used as a tool of duress throughout this process. Residents were told that if they did not agree to the outcome the state wanted, they would be forced to haul water from a tanker. That is not voluntary agreement. It is a decision made under pressure, in a context where the basic need for safe water was used to steer residents toward a predetermined outcome.
But the public deserves to understand the real issue: Hartman’s steel tank is rusted, open in places, and structurally non‑viable. No amount of chlorine or operator funding can make water safe in a tank that cannot maintain sanitary conditions. This is why Hartman remained under boil orders even when certified operators were in place.
Despite this, the state is allocating $100,000 for a water operator — funding that cannot solve a problem caused by a failing tank. This is the same condition for which Hartman was previously fined, even though the town had no ability to repair a failed asset. In practice, the operator is being used as a temporary tool until the county can push Hartman’s failed water system onto another water provider. Once that happens, costs for residents will rise sharply — including new meters, connection fees, system upgrades, and significantly higher monthly rates. Residents will be responsible for bringing the system up to modern standards, even though the system failed decades ago.
Meanwhile, Prowers County is holding several years of Hartman’s property‑tax revenue, and Hartman had already secured $1 million in grant funding specifically for replacing the tank. The responsible solution is straightforward: allow Hartman to hold an election, reestablish its government, and use its own tax revenue and grant funding to replace the tank. That is a real fix — not another temporary operator and not another round of fines.
Instead, SB26‑157 offers a different kind of solution — one that protects institutions, not residents. It frees the county from responsibility for years of withheld revenue and for failing to address financial crimes committed against the town. It shields the state from the DOLA audit requested last year, which would have exposed years of neglect, contradictory statutory guidance, and overreach that harmed residents. It clears USDA of responsibility for not renegotiating a bond on a tank that multiple agencies already knew could not be repaired. And it protects the doctrine of “local control,” promoted by CML and its insurance arm, CIRSA — a doctrine that shields governments while leaving small statutory towns without support when they collapse.
In short, SB26‑157 resolves the state’s problem, not Hartman’s. Hartman is left without safe water while agencies wait for legislation that protects institutions from accountability rather than addressing the structural failure that caused this crisis.
Hartman’s collapse is not unique. Records show that multiple rural towns are in the same position, and the state has no statutory mechanism to support any of them. Hartman is the example that exposes a statewide pattern: the structural failure in the way Colorado designed, funded, and supported statutory towns under Title 31— and SB26‑157 will allow the state to avoid confronting that truth.
Shawna Casey, Hartman Resident
Hartman —A Public Health Failure With No One Showing Up
Here it is, May 6th, and Hartman residents are facing unsafe water. The chlorine has run out, the water smells of bacteria, and no one from the state has responded. This is happening even though residents were pressured to “agree” to abandonment under the claim that doing so would protect water service. This is exactly the public‑health failure the state said Hartman would avoid if residents agreed to be dissolved.
DOLA says they made 35 visits — but never explains why those visits produced no functional governance or water‑system improvements. If the board still collapsed, then one of two things is true: either the support was ineffective, or the state knew the board was failing but did nothing to correct it. Either way, bragging about site visits is not evidence of success. It is evidence of a failed support system. That truth seems to be missing in all of this.
If those visits meant anything, then the state had full knowledge of the tank’s condition — the rusted seams, the open rivets, the structural failure, and the impossibility of maintaining sanitary water. So how do they now explain the state of the water system? How do they justify fines for conditions they witnessed repeatedly? How do they justify pressuring residents into dissolution when they knew the tank could not be made safe? If 35 visits did not result in intervention, repair, or even an accurate public explanation, then the visits were not oversight — they were documentation of a problem the state chose not to address.
The state is presently waiting out SB26‑157 so they don’t have to step in right now — using this time to stall while the water is contaminated. If the state intervened today, it would be acknowledging that Hartman is not abandoned, that the system still requires oversight, and that the assurances given to residents were not accurate. By waiting for the bill to move through the legislature, the state avoids taking immediate responsibility for a public‑health failure happening in real time.
In an effort to protect themselves and other agencies, the state used urgency and fear to steer residents toward dissolution. They used crisis framing to create the impression that dissolution was the only option. But urgency is not inevitability, and fear is not a plan. Urgency means something needs attention; inevitability means there are no choices left. The state presented those two ideas as if they were the same — and they were not. The state did not run out of options; they ran out of excuses. The mere fact that SB26‑157 was drafted is proof that options existed. The choice to draft a bill was not about repairing failed statutory law — it was about protecting institutions from the consequences of their actions and inactions.
Fear has been used as a tool of duress throughout this process. Residents were told that if they did not agree to the outcome the state wanted, they would be forced to haul water from a tanker. That is not voluntary agreement. It is a decision made under pressure, in a context where the basic need for safe water was used to steer residents toward a predetermined outcome.
But the public deserves to understand the real issue: Hartman’s steel tank is rusted, open in places, and structurally non‑viable. No amount of chlorine or operator funding can make water safe in a tank that cannot maintain sanitary conditions. This is why Hartman remained under boil orders even when certified operators were in place.
Despite this, the state is allocating $100,000 for a water operator — funding that cannot solve a problem caused by a failing tank. This is the same condition for which Hartman was previously fined, even though the town had no ability to repair a failed asset. In practice, the operator is being used as a temporary tool until the county can push Hartman’s failed water system onto another water provider. Once that happens, costs for residents will rise sharply — including new meters, connection fees, system upgrades, and significantly higher monthly rates. Residents will be responsible for bringing the system up to modern standards, even though the system failed decades ago.
Meanwhile, Prowers County is holding several years of Hartman’s property‑tax revenue, and Hartman had already secured $1 million in grant funding specifically for replacing the tank. The responsible solution is straightforward: allow Hartman to hold an election, reestablish its government, and use its own tax revenue and grant funding to replace the tank. That is a real fix — not another temporary operator and not another round of fines.
Instead, SB26‑157 offers a different kind of solution — one that protects institutions, not residents. It frees the county from responsibility for years of withheld revenue and for failing to address financial crimes committed against the town. It shields the state from the DOLA audit requested last year, which would have exposed years of neglect, contradictory statutory guidance, and overreach that harmed residents. It clears USDA of responsibility for not renegotiating a bond on a tank that multiple agencies already knew could not be repaired. And it protects the doctrine of “local control,” promoted by CML and its insurance arm, CIRSA — a doctrine that shields governments while leaving small statutory towns without support when they collapse.
In short, SB26‑157 resolves the state’s problem, not Hartman’s. Hartman is left without safe water while agencies wait for legislation that protects institutions from accountability rather than addressing the structural failure that caused this crisis.
Hartman’s collapse is not unique. Records show that multiple rural towns are in the same position, and the state has no statutory mechanism to support any of them. Hartman is the example that exposes a statewide pattern: the structural failure in the way Colorado designed, funded, and supported statutory towns under Title 31— and SB26‑157 will allow the state to avoid confronting that truth.
Shawna Casey, Hartman Resident
Filed Under: Letters to the Editor
About the Author:
