Determination of Town Abandonment
SB157 changes Colorado law governing when a town may be declared abandoned, adding a new pathway for abandonment when a town lacks a board of trustees or town clerk, cannot hold an election, and owns or operates water infrastructure critical to residents’ water treatment or delivery. Under that new process, the county would not be liable for the town’s water-related debts or obligations, and the county would be required to transfer the water system’s real and personal property to an entity whose primary purpose is water treatment or delivery, unless the county decides otherwise.
The bill also updates the abandonment procedure by allowing applications from the county attorney, landowners in the town, or registered electors, and by requiring the Secretary of State to post notice on the Secretary of State’s website and in the town. If the Secretary of State determines the town is abandoned, the town ceases to exist and its records are deposited with the county clerk and recorder for safekeeping. In addition, the bill creates a temporary funding mechanism for failing or likely failing water systems in towns subject to an abandonment application, allowing up to $100,000 to be transferred from the small communities water and wastewater grant fund to the Department of Public Safety to contract for routine operation and maintenance of existing water treatment infrastructure.
The bill’s fiscal and legal impact is limited but targeted. It appropriates $100,000 for the Department of Public Safety for the 2026-27 fiscal year and authorizes use of those funds only for temporary operation and maintenance, not system improvements. The state expressly does not assume ownership, liability, or responsibility for the water system or the town’s debts and obligations. The temporary grant authority sunsets July 1, 2028, making the water-system assistance a short-term measure tied to abandonment proceedings.
Overall, the bill appears to have been received favorably and moved with unanimous support in both chambers and committees, including consent-calendar treatment in the Senate Appropriations Committee and 33-0 and 59-0 floor votes in the Senate and House, respectively. The lack of recorded opposition suggests broad agreement that the bill addresses a narrow public-safety and local-governance problem involving failing municipal water systems and towns that are effectively nonfunctioning.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the unusual intersection of municipal abandonment law and water-system management. The bill carefully limits state exposure by stating that temporary assistance does not transfer ownership or liability to the state, while also shifting responsibility for abandoned-town water assets to a county or another water-focused entity. That structure suggests concern about ensuring residents continue to receive safe water service without creating open-ended state or county liability.
SB157 amends Colorado’s town-abandonment statute, C.R.S. 31-3-201, to add a new abandonment trigger for towns that cannot function as a local government and that own or operate critical water infrastructure. It also requires notice through the Secretary of State’s website, clarifies who may file an abandonment application, and directs that records of an abandoned town be preserved by the county clerk and recorder. Separately, it amends the small communities water and wastewater grant fund statute, C.R.S. 25-1.5-208, to allow a temporary transfer of up to $100,000 to the Department of Public Safety for emergency operation and maintenance of a town’s existing water treatment infrastructure while an abandonment application is pending, with a sunset in 2028. The bill affects towns, counties, the Secretary of State, the Department of Public Safety, and entities that operate water treatment or delivery systems.
The bill’s legislative history indicates strong bipartisan support and little visible controversy. It advanced unanimously through Senate and House committees and passed both chambers on near-consent terms, suggesting lawmakers viewed it as a practical response to a narrow but serious local infrastructure and governance problem. The tone of the bill is precautionary and public-safety oriented, emphasizing continuity of water service and limiting state liability.
The principal policy tension is how to manage a town that is effectively defunct but still owns critical water infrastructure. Supporters appear to favor a mechanism that prevents service disruption and ensures a responsible entity takes over the system, while also allowing short-term state-funded maintenance. Any concerns would likely center on the county’s role in transferring water assets, the temporary use of grant funds for operational support rather than capital improvements, and the explicit disclaimer that the state is not assuming ownership or liability for the water system or town debts. The unanimous votes suggest these issues were resolved without major opposition.