A Stormwater Story

How Aiken County permitted development activities that led to road closures.

by Don Moniak
January 11, 2024

On two occasions in the Fall of 2024 , the University Parkway (Hwy 118) portion of Aiken’s bypass was temporarily closed at its junction with Vaucluse Road. While the official reason for the closures provided by government officials was flooding, a better term would be “debris flow,” as heavy soil erosion caused by major rain events led to the road being covered with sandy sediments that posed an unacceptable risk to public safety.

The first incident occurred after approximately 8.0 inches of steady rain over a 24-hour period— Hurricane Helene and the “predecessor” rain event—fell from September 26-27. The second incident was on November 6th following close to five inches of rain in about a 12-hour period. According to a Department of Transportation report, the cause November 6th closure resulted from sediments that accompanied a stormwater detention pond failure that was under construction.

In both instances, the sandy debris originated from a housing construction site known as Highland Bluffs, where a subdivision of 110 single-family homes is under development, and 116 townhome-style apartments are scheduled for a second phase of development (Figure 1). The developer, Highland Bluff LLC, is operating on a relatively steep slope that was has been described by Aiken County Administrator Brian Sanders at a County Council meeting as “precarious.”

From Approval to Road Closures.

On September 13, 2022, the City of Aiken’s Planning Commission recommended providing city water and sewer services for the development, and Aiken City Council gave final approval on September 26, 2022.

In April 2023, the Aiken County Planning Commission gave the developer preliminary plat approval for the single-family residences. The resolution any identified issues, including any that might be raised by the county’s engineering staff, was required before construction could begin. All of those contingencies were resolved by April 2024.

Construction began in May 2024. The heavily forested site was clearcut except for 10 to 15-foot forested buffers along the two roads bounding the site preparation work. Intensive grading ensued to prepare the site for high density housing.


According to County inspection reports*, problems quickly emerged in May and June that plagued the site all summer. The chronic issues included torn silt fences, an entrance that needed constant maintenance to prevent sediment from leaving the site, and soil erosion via strong winds resulting in sediments “leaving the disturbed area.” There were also “drink bottles/trash found in several areas” in May and “all over” the site in July.

In July, the county inspector reported (Figure 2) that lack of maintenance was allowing sediment to leave the site via swales (drainage ditches) in the site right of way entrances; and that the detention pond that was under construction was lacking riprap (stones placed on the shoreline to prevent erosion), a skimmer (to drain only the topmost, sediment-free layer of water), and slope stabilization. In addition, the catch basins were holding sediment, but sediment was also “leaving the site via a culvert.”

Figure 2: Portion of August 2024 county inspection report.

After a wet July that included at least one rain event of more than three inches, the inspector added that, “many slopes will need to be repaired. Issues along Vaucluse Road need to be addressed.”

By the end of a drier August, water erosion was again replaced by wind erosion that settled fine dust on neighboring properties, the culvert at the entrance was missing riprap, the detention pond still lacked erosion controls, and “both construction entrances (were) allowing sediment to leave site via swales in ROW.”

Not a single local media source accurately cited the reason for the closure, leaving the misimpression that it was floodwaters that caused the closures, not a debris flow.

At Aiken City Council’s November 12th meeting, Aiken Public Safety Chief Charles Barranco confirmed the latter road closure stemmed from “debris from the property above the road.”

At County Council’s November 19th meeting, the issue was raised during the public comment period. County Administrator Brian Sanders also confirmed the closures stemmed from sediments originating from the Highland Bluffs construction site, and cited the detention pond construction as the primary source.

In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”

However, the County’s inspection records suggest that the County’s own guidelines legal guidelines for site preparation were arguably not met in this instance.

According to Section 19.5-23 of the County Code, these measures include the use of “temporary plant cover, mulching, and/or structures to control runoff…during the period of development or land use change,” disturbing the smallest area practical at any one time, retaining natural vegetation and saving topsoil, and provisions to “effectively accommodate the increased runoff caused by the changed soil and surface conditions; i.e. diversion ditches, grassed or surfaced water-ways and outlets, enlarged and protected drainage channels.

This is not the first new subdivision in North Aiken to suffer from excessive soil erosion during the site preparation phase that impacted neighbors and affected public safety. Similar dust storms originating from the Portrait Hills subdivision in early 2023–permitted by the City of Aiken—covered neighboring homes and businesses with a fine layer of gritty dust and sand and created visibility issues on Highway 19 North.

The lesson learned is that the promises made by local government to concerned neighbors regarding new developments should certainly be treated by concerned citizens with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Footnote

*Aiken County inspections from May to August, 2024. Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

4 thoughts on “A Stormwater Story”

  1. RE: “In response to subsequent questions raised by Council members PK Hightower and Kelly Mobley, (County Administrator Brian) Sanders also stated that “they have a right to develop their property,” and that “they are doing everything right.”

    It seems kind of hopeless when the chief executive officer for Aiken County makes such a obviously and blatantly false statement — compounded by the fact that the local rag (“Aiken Substandard”) sees no evils, hears no evils and reports no evils.

    Perhaps Mr. Sanders is blind and deaf? Or, more likely, he is an apologist for the developer, and an excuser for the failings of the organization of which he is the head.

  2. Always in a hurry to make a quick buck, but lacking common sense for the aftermath of poor, misguided, fundamentally & structurally inadequate developers that lie to the city & the people. On top of which the council lacks the sense to detect improper structures after the fact. Sure, Remove hundreds of trees, yet again, & hope the rain water will just evaporate. This is why new, smart, concerned & intelligent members need to replace the old, brainless, greedy members today.

  3. So many failures, at every turn.

    The developer(s) failed to bring forth a plan that would pass a rudimentary engineering “snicker test.” Why? Money, of course.

    County authorities were derelict in rejecting site plans that any 10th grade engineering student could see were doomed from the start. Why? They either “can’t” (i.e., they are bound by the minimially restrictive land use planning regulations) or they won’t (begging a more serious question of ethical behavior).

    Until and unless Aiken County puts some teeth in comprehensive planning and land use regulations — and really punishes developers for violations — travesties like this will continue to be the norm.

    Planning agencies are hamstrung by weak laws, and few people in an elected or employed capacity are audacious/stupid enough to question the system. They perceive these sardine-tin developments as great ways to “grow the tax base”, yet take no measure of the resultant pressure on our natural resources, infrastructure, schools, etc.

Leave a Reply to R. Santalesa Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *