Letter to the Editor – “Public health assistance is conditioned on dissolution”

To the Editor:

On March 21, 2026, Representative Ty Winter sent an email regarding Hartman’s water crisis. In that message, he stated that he and Senator Rod Pelton had formally urged the Governor to intervene using the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act (CDEA), CRS 24‑33.5‑701. This is significant because it shows that our legislators acknowledged—months ago—that Hartman met the statutory criteria for a state‑level emergency.

In that email, Representative Winter emphasized the need for timely intervention, stabilizing operations, protecting public health, and developing a long‑term solution. He also stated that they were “exploring all options” and would “continue to work with us.” He framed the communication as acting on behalf of Hartman, recognizing that the town was already in a state of municipal paralysis and unable to function through normal statutory channels.

This matters because the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act already provides a lawful mechanism for the state to intervene when a local government cannot. Hartman declared a local emergency in August 2025. The March 21 email shows that the legislature recognized this emergency, invoked the correct statute, and formally asked the executive branch to act. This occurred before SB26‑157 existed, contradicting any narrative that the state “lacked authority” prior to the bill.

Yet today, on June 13, 2026, Hartman still has no emergency intervention, no stabilization of the water system, no protection of public health, no long‑term plan, no statutory rights preserved, no functioning water system.

Instead, we now have a new law—SB26‑157—that creates a process for dissolving towns but does not fix water, does not provide emergency operators, does not fund chlorination, does not repair the tank, and does not address contamination. The only path being offered is dissolution.

This stands in direct contrast to the commitments made in March. Representative Winter’s email said, “timely intervention is necessary,” “protect public health,” “stabilize operations,” “develop a long‑term solution,” “we are exploring all options,” and “we will continue to work with you.” But the reality is that Hartman has received no intervention, no protection, no stabilization, no options, and no engagement.

Residents are now being told: Dissolve your town or continue drinking contaminated water. That is not “exploring all options.” It is presenting one option and calling it “all options.”

By citing the Colorado Disaster Emergency Act, Representative Winter acknowledged that the state already had the authority to intervene. The Governor had the power to deploy resources, personnel, and emergency management support. Yet the state chose not to use that authority. Instead, it drafted a bill that removes statutory rights without addressing the public‑health emergency.

This situation places Hartman in a position where public health assistance is conditioned on dissolution. For a community with no functioning government, no election authority, no ability to levy taxes, no ability to pay operators, and no ability to chlorinate or repair infrastructure, withholding emergency assistance effectively forces a choice that is not a choice.

A lawful path forward would have included acting on Hartman’s August 2025 emergency declaration, using the CDEA as acknowledged in March, providing emergency operators, providing chlorination, protecting public health, ensuring continuity of government, preserving statutory rights, and conducting audits and investigations into the collapse.

Instead, the state and county have ignored the emergency declaration, ignored the statutory emergency powers they acknowledged, withheld emergency assistance, allowed contaminated water to continue flowing, withheld Hartman’s own tax revenue, avoided audits, avoided investigations, and conditioned public health on dissolution.

If Hartman dissolves, the town government ceases to exist, statutory rights disappear, no election can be held, no board can be reestablished, no audit is required, no investigation is triggered, and no one has standing to challenge past actions. The water system becomes a county responsibility with no historical accountability, and the state can say, “the town no longer exists; the matter is closed.”

Dissolution is not a solution. It is a shield.

The public should be aware that while Hartman continues to face a public‑health emergency, our state legislators have been focused on campaign visits to surrounding towns rather than direct engagement with Hartman’s ongoing crisis. This contrast between earlier assurances and current actions is important context for understanding the state’s response.

Hartman deserves transparency, lawful process, and immediate public‑health protection—not conditions, delays, or the loss of statutory rights.

Respectfully submitted,

Shawna Casey – Hartman, Colorado

Respectfully submitted,

Shawna Casey – Hartman, Colorado