Letter to the Editor – “The Missing Agency in Hartman’s Dissolution – USDA’s Silence is the Real Story”

To the Editor:

As the State of Colorado moves forward with dissolving the Town of Hartman, the public has been told a simple story: Hartman was “dysfunctional,” unable to hire a water operator, and unwilling to meet drinking water compliance requirements. That narrative is convenient, but it is not true. It leaves out the one agency whose decisions shaped every part of Hartman’s water crisis — and whose absence from the dissolution process is impossible to justify.

That agency is USDA Rural Development, the federal lender that financed Hartman’s water system in 1999–2000 and still holds the bond today.

For over twenty-five years, Hartman paid USDA on a federal bond for a water tank that the state and GMS engineers repeatedly documented as irreparable. The tank has rust holes, cracks, and structural failure. A tank in that condition cannot hold pressure — and without pressure, chlorine cannot be injected. I have been told that is basic physics.

To disinfect water, operators use a pump that pushes chlorine into the tank. This only works if the tank can hold pressure, the same way a balloon must hold air. If the tank has holes or cracks, the pressure escapes immediately. The chlorine cannot mix, cannot circulate, and cannot stay in the water. No certified operator can legally inject chlorine into a tank that cannot hold pressure. Hartman’s inability to hire an operator was not “dysfunction.” It was the direct result of a failed USDA-financed asset.

And the state knew it.

In August 2025, Hartman formally notified USDA and DOLA that the tank was irreparable and had been for decades. CDPHE was not physically present at the meeting, but they were formally informed of the structural failure and the fact that the system could not meet any drinking water requirements. Once notified, CDPHE had a legal obligation to investigate, escalate, and suspend enforcement actions. They did none of those things.

Instead of acknowledging the federal failure, the state continued issuing compliance fines for violations that were physically impossible to correct. CDPHE kept demanding chlorine injection into a tank that could not hold pressure. They kept issuing operator violations even though no operator could legally operate a system that had already failed. And USDA — the federal agency responsible for financing, approving, and overseeing the project — remained silent.

That silence matters.

When I began filing CORA requests in late 2025 to find out exactly what USDA, DOLA, and CDPHE knew about the tank’s irreparability, the response was immediate and unmistakable. Within days, CDPHE issued an accumulated cost of noncompliance fines, and shortly after that the Attorney General’s Office threatened litigation against the town. These actions did not come after new violations — they came after requests for records. The timing speaks for itself. The moment we tried to document what the agencies knew, the state shifted from ignoring the problem to punishing the town. This was not enforcement. It was retaliation designed to protect USDA’s absence and CDPHE’s inaction.

The State’s conduct went even further. Residents were told that if they signed the dissolution petition, the State would “bring in an operator” and “shock the system” to restore safe water. This promise was impossible to fulfill. A tank with holes, cracks, and rust perforations cannot hold pressure, and without pressure no operator can legally inject chlorine or shock the system. The State promised a fix they knew could not be performed — and used that promise to secure signatures for dissolution. Residents were not given full information. They were given false hope.

After I shared the full documentation of the tank’s irreparability — including USDA’s role — with state officials, including Representative Winters, Governor Polis, and Senator Pelton, the State did not intervene to fix the system. Instead, they drafted SB26‑157, a bill designed to create a new pathway for dissolving towns. The timing is not accidental. Rather than address the failed federal asset or confront USDA’s responsibility, the State chose to create legislation that would allow them to dissolve Hartman and remove their own obligations along with it. Dissolution became the policy solution to a problem caused by a federal infrastructure failure.

USDA’s absence from the dissolution process means the public is being asked to believe Hartman collapsed because of “local dysfunction,” when the truth is far simpler: the town was built around a failed federal asset, and the agencies responsible for that asset refused to act when the failure was formally reported.

The trio of uncertified trustees the state and CML supported in late 2025 were not chosen because they could fix the water system. They were chosen because they would not challenge USDA’s role in the failure. Their presence allowed the state to maintain a narrative of “local infighting” instead of confronting the fact that Hartman had been paying for decades on a dead federal project.

Now, as dissolution proceeds, USDA remains invisible — even though they hold the bond, financed the system, approved the engineering, and were notified of the failure. The public deserves to know why the federal lender is absent from a process that directly involves a federally financed asset.

Hartman did not fail because it was dysfunctional. Hartman failed because its water system was irreparable, and the agencies responsible for that system — including USDA — refused to intervene when the town asked for help.

If the state is going to dissolve a town, it owes the public the full story. And that story must include USDA.

Shawna Casey – Hartman Resident