The Colorado Secretary of State’s Office has formally declared the Town of Hartman, a small southeastern Colorado community, abandoned. Most sources cite a population of roughly 30 people, with one 2020 census count noting fewer than 60 total residents.

Earlier this year, all of Hartman’s elected officials resigned, leaving no functioning local government—including no town clerk to administer municipal elections. The final board of trustees members stepped down following a physical altercation during a public meeting, which coincided with embezzlement allegations, civil lawsuits, and restraining orders between town members. Prior to this mass resignation, the town had a years-long history of internal conflict, including unheld elections and accusations of misused public funds. The Denver Post has described Hartman’s administrative failure as having no parallel in recent state history, comparing the town’s internal feuding to the famous Hatfield and McCoy Appalachian rivalry. Some residents had sought to run for office again, but no new elections could be held without a functioning governing body.

The town had been under a boil water advisory for multiple months, with tap water lacking chlorine for over a month, resulting in an unpleasant odor and unsafe drinking conditions. The town’s water system serves roughly 40 homes, requiring major repairs to its storage tower, and local health inspectors had warned of safety gaps for years, including a lack of a certified water system operator and failure to complete required contaminant testing. The state awarded more than $1 million in grants to fund water infrastructure fixes, but without elected leaders in place, the town could not secure the necessary contracts to access the funding.

A local resident identified as Jessie Simmons—a landowner and registered voter—submitted a formal petition to the Secretary of State’s Office to declare Hartman abandoned. Prior to 2024’s Senate Bill 157, legislation drafted specifically to address Hartman’s unique situation, Colorado law required a town to go five years without a functioning government to be designated abandoned. The new law created an expedited process for towns facing critical public health hazards like failing water systems with no elected leadership. Deputy Secretary of State Andrew Kline signed the 15-page official abandonment order, stating that denying the petition would leave residents trapped in legal limbo during a public health risk, and that abandonment was the only legal mechanism under state statute to transfer town assets to local government to secure clean drinking water.

Some Hartman residents opposed the abandonment declaration, arguing the town was failed by its protective systems rather than being a failed community, but state officials overruled these objections.

Barring any successful appeal, all public streets, town-owned property, and water infrastructure will transfer to Prowers County. County officials will take over oversight of the system, work to locate a qualified water operator, and may access emergency state funding to stabilize the water supply. Some private water operators have been hesitant to take on the role due to Hartman’s history of internal conflict and negative reputational ties; if no qualified operator is found quickly, county officials will turn to a private engineering firm to manage the system instead. Currently, the state is conducting water testing, adding chlorine, and maintaining pump operations during the transition, though some residents report still relying on bottled water for drinking and cooking. Elderly or disabled residents have faced particular challenges accessing bottled supplies, and some residents say promised state and local support has not yet arrived.

Hartman is the first Colorado town to face abandonment tied directly to a major water crisis, though other small Colorado towns have been declared abandoned in the past. County officials note that small water systems across the United States face similar risks amid stricter environmental regulations and rising operational costs.

Original Sources/Tags: abc7amarillo.com, foxnews.com, denverpost.com, newsweek.com, theguardian.com, newsnationnow.com, washingtonexaminer.com, timesnownews.com, (colorado), (elections)

This article provides no actionable, usable help for a normal person. It only describes a single, specific event involving the Town of Hartman, with no clear steps, resources, or instructions that readers could apply to their own lives, communities, or decisions. There are no tools, contact information, or guidance for how to engage with similar municipal issues, so it offers no immediate practical value.

In terms of educational depth, the article only shares surface-level facts about the Hartman abandonment. It does not explain Colorado’s state laws governing abandoned municipalities, how the $1 million in water system grants was awarded, why the lack of elected officials blocked contract procurement, or what will happen to the town’s remaining residents long-term. It includes basic numbers like the town’s 30-person population and the grant amount, but does not explain their significance or how they were calculated, leaving the information superficial and uncontextualized.

The article has very limited personal relevance. It focuses on an extremely rare, small-scale event that affects only Hartman’s 30 residents and local Colorado government officials. It has no meaningful impact on the safety, finances, health, or daily decisions of most regular readers, so it does not connect to most people’s real lives.

For public service function, the article simply recounts a news event without offering any safety guidance, warning about similar risks for small towns, or providing context to help communities act responsibly. It exists solely to report the occurrence of the town’s abandonment, rather than serving the public by sharing useful, actionable information.

There is no practical advice included in the article at all. It does not offer steps that any ordinary reader could realistically follow, even if they wanted to engage with the issue or support the town’s residents.

The article also offers no long-term value. It focuses only on the immediate event of Hartman’s abandonment, with no information that could help readers plan ahead, avoid similar community failures, or build stronger local systems to address public health or infrastructure issues.

Emotionally and psychologically, the article remains neutral and factual, so it does not create unnecessary fear or shock. However, it also provides no constructive way for readers to process or respond to the information, leaving them with no clear takeaway beyond a single, distant news story.

The article does not use clickbait or ad-driven language. It relies on straightforward, unexaggerated reporting with no sensationalized claims, overpromises, or shock tactics to gain attention.

The article misses several chances to teach or guide readers. It does not explain the broader context of small-town government failures, barriers to grant access for cash-strapped communities, or how residents can take action to prevent or address local government collapse. It also does not offer simple, general ways for readers to learn more about similar issues, such as researching local government protocols or reaching out to regional county officials for guidance.

To add meaningful, general guidance that applies to most small communities, here are proactive steps anyone can take. Familiarize yourself with your local government’s official protocols for handling elected official vacancies, missed quorums, and emergency public health issues. Most small towns and counties have backup plans for when formal leadership gaps occur, and understanding these rules can help you advocate for action if your community faces similar problems. If your community is awarded grant funding for infrastructure or public health projects, assign a dedicated volunteer to navigate administrative and contract requirements early on. Delays like those faced in Hartman often stem from a lack of trained staff to handle bureaucratic paperwork, so proactively organizing this work can prevent gridlock. Build a basic contingency plan for local public health or infrastructure crises, such as maintaining a pre-vetted list of local contractors who can respond quickly to emergency repairs, so your community does not get stuck waiting for formal government approval during a crisis. If you notice signs of local government dysfunction, such as unaddressed public safety concerns or missed public meetings, reach out to your regional county officials, who typically have oversight over small municipalities, to request support and guidance. These steps are grounded in universal principles of community preparedness and proactive governance, and do not require specialized external data or specific knowledge beyond what is readily available to most people.

The text uses an absolute claim with no proof here. The exact words are “abandoning the town is the only legal way to ensure the town’s residents receive clean drinking water.” This line says there are no other legal ways to fix the water issue, but it does not show any proof of that. It makes readers believe there is no other choice without sharing all possible options. This is a trick to make people accept the decision without asking more questions.

The text uses a loaded word to shape how readers feel. The exact words are “the Town of Hartman has been abandoned.” The word “abandoned” makes people think the town’s residents left on their own, but the text says the local government stopped working, not that people moved away. This word tricks readers into thinking the town was left behind, instead of explaining that its government fell apart. This changes the way people see the town’s situation without being clear.

The text only shares one side of the story here. The exact words focus on what Deputy Secretary Andrew Kline says about the abandonment. It does not include any comments from the town’s residents, other local officials, or people who might disagree with the decision. This makes readers only hear one opinion instead of getting a full picture of the situation.

The text skips important details about the physical fight. The exact words are “the final members of its board of trustees resigned following a physical fight.” It does not say who was in the fight, what caused it, or how it led to the resignations. This leaves out key information that would help readers understand the full story. This trick makes the chain of events seem simpler than it really is.

The text uses a vague phrase to describe the water problem. The exact words are “the town’s drinking water was found to pose a health hazard.” It does not say what exactly made the water dangerous, like germs or chemicals. This vague wording makes the water problem seem scarier without giving clear details. It tricks readers into feeling more worried about the situation without sharing specific facts.

The text expresses three key meaningful emotions that shape how readers understand the Town of Hartman’s abandonment. The first is concern for the town’s 30 residents, which appears in Deputy Secretary Andrew Kline’s formal explanation of his decision, specifically when he notes that skipping the abandonment would leave residents stuck in confusing legal limbo with unsafe drinking water, unable to run town business or repair their water infrastructure. This emotion is strong because it ties directly to public health and basic quality of life for a small community, and its purpose is to frame the abandonment as a caring, necessary choice rather than a harsh one. The second emotion is urgency, which also appears in Kline’s statement when he emphasizes that inaction would leave residents trapped without solutions for their water system or local government operations; this emotion has high strength because it presents the situation as time-sensitive with no room to delay, and its purpose is to guide readers to agree that the abandonment was the only fast way to deliver clean water to the community. The third emotion is frustration, which comes through in the description of the town’s stalled grant funding: the town was awarded more than one million dollars to fix its water system, but no elected officials remained to sign the contracts needed to use that money, and this moderate-strength emotion helps readers understand why the town could not solve its water crisis without a new local government. Together, these emotions steer readers to view the abandonment as a last-resort solution rather than a mistake, creating sympathy for the community’s struggles, pushing acceptance that no better option existed, and clarifying why normal progress was impossible. The writer uses several tools to amplify these emotional impacts, starting with choosing emotional, specific language instead of neutral terms: phrases like “confusing legal limbo” sound more stressful than generic descriptions of legal trouble, making the urgency of the situation feel stronger. The writer also repeats the lack of elected officials as a key barrier, which emphasizes the frustration of stalled progress and the need for a solution. Additionally, the writer compares the town’s normal operations like running town business and holding elections to the impossible situation without a government, helping readers see why the abandonment was the only legal way to move forward. Finally, the writer mentions the physical fight that led to the board of trustees’ resignations as a clear, upsetting event that explains why the local government collapsed, making the abandonment feel like a last resort rather than a quick, unthoughtful choice.