All posts by Laura Lance

City Government, July 2024

The Citizens’ Voice at City Council Meetings (Part One)

4 Comments

Citizen input has been an elegant, effective and, yes, efficient part of City business for over 100 years and counting. So why did City Council recently move to curtail public comment in their Monday night meetings?

First in a two-part series by Laura Lance
Tuesday, July 30, 2024

On Thursday, June 20, 2024, Aiken City Council released its agenda for the June 24th meeting. City Council meeting agendas are prepared by City Manager Stuart Bedenbaugh and, as required under City Code1, they are publicly posted by noon on Friday before the Monday meeting. 

On the agenda were eleven public hearings, which promised a very busy meeting. The last hearing on the agenda was a plain-faced item titled, “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code.” Unlike the other items on the agenda, this one was devoid of description.2

Many readers might skim past this nondescript title, and that is exactly what happened until Sunday afternoon, when the conspicuous lack of description drew the curiosity of one seasoned agenda reader. Digging into the agenda package, she found the description on pages 341-348. Here, she learned that this proposed ordinance was set to reduce and restrict public input, inquiry and participation in public meetings. She posted notice to the local community via social media:

ABOVE: Screenshot of Katy Lipscomb’s June 23rd social media post, which was accompanied by screenshots3 of pages 341-348 of the meeting agenda package. Click for larger view.

If not for her notice, it is unlikely that anyone would have known the importance of attending the Monday night meeting, much less been compelled to stay into the third and fourth hours of the meeting in order to give comment on this innocuous-sounding agenda item. 

A number of questions beg answers, among them:

  • Why was this important public hearing cloaked behind a vague and incomplete title?
  • Why was this item tacked onto the end of a long list of public hearings?
  • Why was the item’s description effectively hidden from view by burying it on page 341 of the agenda?
  • Who proposed this amendment?
And Why?

According to statements made by two of the six council members who spoke4 during the Monday night “First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code,” the City body was driven by a need for “efficiency.” Toward this end, attendees were advised that City Council meetings are business meetings and that business should go first. There were also concerns that non-agenda comments were causing the meetings to run long.

Councilwoman Kay Brohl suggested that the non-agenda public comments had prevented those who’d come to do business with the City from the opportunity to get up and speak. Council member Ed Girardeau, speaking on the history of citizen comments, said, “There was never a time when the public was allowed to just get up and talk and say whatever they wanted to say.”

Neither of these statements is true. Part Two in this article series will crunch the numbers on Councilwoman Brohl’s statement. Part One will address both the history and the history-making dimensions of non-agenda citizen comments, which have been a part of City Council meetings going back as far as 1842 .

100 Years Ago

A modern reader might feel a creeping sense of deja vu reading the minutes and newspaper accounts of Aiken City Council meetings over the past century. In the 1920s, a City Council meeting could run for three hours, and the people’s voice was no small part of the proceedings.

In addition to comments and petitions from year-round residents, City Council received letters and telegrams from Winter Colony residents who weighed in from afar. The women of the citizen-based Civic League, some of whom hailed from the Winter Colony, were also vocal and regular participants in City government. Citizen concerns of the day included stormwater runoff, sewer infrastructure, parking issues, public restrooms, requests for street lights, planting trees, beautifying parks, and the gathering of petitions to protest the destruction of trees and parks.

Some of the benefits reaped from the citizen input brought to City Council in the 1920s are still with us today: 

  • A citizens petition requesting sidewalk improvements on the north side of South Boundary.
  • A citizen request from Aiken Graded School to use part of Sumter Street and Abbeville Avenue to make a playground and pool for the neighborhood children. Permission was granted, and this property is now part of the Smith Hazel Recreation Center and Park.
  • A successful citizens petition to prevent the destruction of the entire Richland Avenue parkway between Morgan and York Streets during the paving of US Highway One.

BELOW: The drive down Richland Avenue would be a different experience today, had citizens of 1920s Aiken not risen up with petition and protest to oppose the full-scale destruction of the iconic Richland Avenue parkways.

Those off-agenda petitions and requests of the 1920s were the direct efforts by citizens to bring Council’s attention to wants, needs, issues and concerns that might not otherwise be heard. Today, these issues and concerns are brought to City Council during the part of the meeting titled, “Nonagenda Items from the Public.”

Tomato, Tomatoh: Non-Agenda Items vs. Petitions and Requests

The term, “Nonagenda Items from the Public,” appears to be a 21st-century invention. Or possibly a 1980s invention. No one knows. The date and authorship of this ordinance remain mysteries that are stubborn to be solved. Research by numerous individuals and City offices is ongoing and has, so far, come up empty. What is known is that, at some point in the 1970s or later, an ordinance was written to create two nonagenda public comment periods. However, and for reasons unknown, the ordinance was never enforced..

Previous to the “nonagenda public comments” nomenclature, Aiken citizens came before Council during was termed the “Petitions and Requests” part of the agenda.  While the terms, petitions and requests have been fixtures in City Council meetings for over 100 years, they didn’t become a formal part of the lexicon until 1955. This is the year that Aiken adopted the Council-Manager form of government, a form of government proclaimed to the Aiken community as one that would meet the need for “effective citizen participation in city affairs” and would be “more efficient than other forms and more responsive to the will of the people.”

The first City Council agenda in July 1955 under this new form of government included an item titled “Petitions and Requests,” described as “Consideration of requests from citizens present who desire to address the Council.”

Citizen requests were often, but not always, brought in writing. This may have been more a matter of practicality than formality as, in those days and for many years prior, matters brought by citizens were often settled on the spot by Council vote. Having a written record of the request likely streamlined the process. This appears to have been the case, for instance, with the 1928 decision to grant Aiken Graded School the use of Abbeville and Sumter Streets for a playground and pool for neighborhood children.

ABOVE: Screenshot from the August 13, 1928 Aiken City Council meeting minutes. Click for larger view.

The building of the pool was a different matter. The City had already built a pool for White people in 1921, but a pool had yet to be built to accommodate Aiken’s Black citizens. This matter would be brought to Council several times over the next 3 decades, including a  1940 City Council meeting when, according to the local newspaper, “a large group of colored citizens appeared before council to appeal for a swimming pool for the colored children of the city.” In 1954, the City finally built a pool for Aiken’s Black citizens.

ABOVE: During the summer of 1954, and in advance of the City building a new pool for White people, the City Council approved funding for the construction of a pool to accommodate Black people, which came to be named the Smith Hazel Pool. (Source: Aiken Standard & Review, August 12, 1954). Click for larger view.

Throughout the 1950s, “Petitions and Requests” was the first item on the agenda following the approval of the minutes. During the 1960s, “Petitions and Requests” appeared at different places in the agenda, disappearing entirely for some years. The agenda, itself, even disappeared from the record for some of these years, finally reappearing in 1970.

New Rules

On July 12, 1976, the topic of citizen input was addressed by ordinance in City Code in a section titled, “Appearance of Citizens,” which stated:

“Any citizen of the municipality shall be entitled to an appearance before council at any regular meeting concerning any municipal matter, with the exception of personnel matters. Persons desiring to speak, must notify the City Manager prior to the beginning of the meeting. This may be waived by the presiding officer.”

From this point on, the provision for off-agenda citizen input appears to have commenced as in decades before, during the Petitions and Requests part of the agenda. As in years prior, some citizens appeared in person, others not; some delivered their words in writing, others in speech.

Advance, written petitions and requests, which were sometimes added to the agenda, can be found in the archives of City Council agendas, whereas the records of citizens who appeared before Council with nonagenda comment, with no advance written notice, can be found in the archives of City Council meeting minutes.

The meeting minutes from a March 1983 meeting, for instance, show comments from four citizens who appeared before Council during Petitions and Requests. If there was advance, written notice of their appearance, it was not made part of the meeting record. Their requests concerned issues of stormwater, streetlights, road hazards and sewer rats:

ABOVE: Screenshots from the March 14, 1983 Aiken City Council meeting minutes describing four off-agenda citizen comments. Click to enlarge.

Regardless of the method of delivery — and regardless of the presence or absence of an ordinance stating official policy on citizen input — it appears that the City of Aiken always provided an avenue for people to bring off-agenda concerns and requests to Council. 

That is, until sometime during the 1980s, when the tradition of hearing off-agenda comments in “Petitions and Requests” devolved into a system again ruled by habit, not policy — a system where only immediate city business was on the agenda, and requests to even speak on a non-agenda item had to be made in advance. This occurred, paradoxically, during the same time frame it is believed the ordinance for “Nonagenda Items from the Public” was written into City Code but never enacted.

In 2022, the absence of this “Nonagenda items from the Public” comment period was brought to Council’s attention by a number of citizens. Afterward, and without fanfare, the item was added to the agenda for the first time, as reported in the article, Aiken City Council Reimplements Citizen Input Rules.

Today, less than two years later, City Council has made a move — in the interest of “efficiency” — to change City Code in ways that will reduce and restrict citizen input.

This seems a perplexing thing to do, since the record over the past two years shows that the inclusion of the nonagenda comment period has actually brought the City closer to realizing its once-promoted ideals of “effective citizen participation” and of a government “more responsive to the will of the people.”

NEXT: The Citizens’ Voice at City Council Meetings: Part Two

_____________________

REFERENCES:

  1. Screenshot of Section 2-65 of the City Code. Click for larger view.
  1. Screenshots from the June 24, 2024 agenda. Public hearings with proper descriptions are highlighted in yellow. The public hearing without description is highlighted in pink. Click for larger views.
  1. Screenshots of pages 341-348 in the June 24, 2024 City Council meeting agenda. Click for larger views.
  1. Starting point for statement made by six Aiken City Council members on First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Section 2.64 of the Aiken City Code.” during the June 24, 2024 City Council meeting.
July 2024, Nature News

A Suspicion of Rabies: What to Do Next?

4 Comments

Twice in the past two years, an animal has appeared in our yard displaying behaviors of concern for rabies. What are the odds?

The Cat and the Fox

The first instance involved a cat; the second time, it was a gray fox. In both cases, I made the wrong assumptions on who to call for advice and assistance. In both cases, I spent upwards of an hour leaving voicemails, making dead-end calls, and following incorrect advice. What I learned may help you, should you see an animal in your yard whose appearance or behaviors raise concerns about rabies. 

NOTE: If you have landed on the page because you urgently need information, simply scan down the page to the tips highlighted in blue + the infographic.

Basics on Rabies

Although any mammal can contract rabies, about 90% of cases in the US are in wildlife. According to SCDHEC, over half of the average 148 cases per year of confirmed rabies in SC are raccoons. The remaining cases were, in order of frequency: skunks, foxes, bats, cats, dogs, and other domestic and wild animals.

The rabies virus is contracted from the saliva and other bodily fluids of an infected animal that can gain entry through a cut, scratch, bite, or through the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose or mouth. Once established, the virus attacks the brain and spinal cord, causing some of the behaviors associated with rabies:

  • An animal that seems disoriented and is staggering and/or walking in circles;
  • An animal having seizures or dragging itself, as if paralyzed;
  • An animal that is drooling excessively;
  • An animal that is biting at itself, others, or imaginary objects;
  • An animal with aggressive or vicious behavior, biting or scratching without provocation;
  • A wild animal that acts tame with no fear of humans;
  • A nocturnal animal that is out in the day AND displaying some of these behaviors.

What To Know and Do

What should you do if you look out your window and see a sick or injured animal with symptoms suggesting rabies?

Just because a wild animal is out in the daytime or appears sick does not mean it has rabies.

A nearby disturbance, such as land clearing or timbering in nearby woods and fields, can send animals fleeing in daylight hours. During spring and early summer, mother raccoons and foxes are working overtime to keep their babies fed. They may be out foraging in midday, sometimes with their young. Foxes will occasionally den with their young under the safety of porches, decks or outbuildings. It is fine to leave them be, as long as you keep a respectful distance and remember they are wild animals.

It is not a kindness to feed wild animals, either accidentally or on purpose, via unsecured garbage can lids, pet food bowls or well-intentioned efforts to help them out. This can handicap wild animals by blurring the boundaries with humans. When animals lose their healthy fear of humans, there is the risk they’ll inappropriately approach humans and come to harm.

Also, keep in mind that a sick animal does not always equal rabies. The symptoms of distemper and other diseases in raccoons and foxes can look like rabies. An injured animal can also present with similar symptoms. 

Keep a safe distance. Do not approach the animal. Know that an animal may suddenly attack or give chase.

Odds are, the animal does not have rabies. But it may be wise to treat the situation “as if” by not approaching the animal. This keeps you safe and prevents the animal from fleeing before it can get help. Keep in mind that any sick or injured animal may be afraid and/or disoriented and can behave with unpredictable, defensive or aggressive behaviors.

Seek professional help, but be aware that not every official you contact will provide correct information.

The last thing you want to do during this stressful situation is to find yourself making a dozen calls to the wrong places. Unfortunately, the protocol for addressing potentially rabid animals is not clearly drawn nor understood, even by many of the individuals working at the various agencies. I do not offer this to insult, just to state the facts as I experienced them and as I was told by two knowledgeable individuals who work within the system: “The system is broken.” 

You may assume or be advised to call the SC Department for Environmental Control (SCDHEC) or the SC Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), but don’t spin your wheels on this. These agencies do not assist in the capture or assessment of potentially rabid animals in your yard.

You may get different advice and conflicting information from everyone who answers the phone. This is because the system for addressing suspected rabies is fragmented and unfortunately seeded with incorrect information. The information in the infographic below should be accurate. It was gathered from numerous conversations with the officials from SCDNR and SCDHEC, local law enforcement officers and dispatchers, City and County Animal Control Officers, and Wildlife Control Officers. Errors are nonetheless possible and will be corrected as needed.

WHO TO CALL?

Whom you call will depend on whether you’re in the City or County. It will also depend on whether the animal is a domestic or wildlife species. Note: The information given here is intended only for animals suspected of rabies, not for addressing issues of stray animals.

CAT or DOG IN CITY LIMITS: If you are in the City and see a dog or cat in your yard with concerning symptoms suggesting rabies, call Aiken Public Safety 24/7 at 803-642-7620. They should dispatch City Animal Control to take care of it.

CAT OR DOG IN THE COUNTY DURING BUSINESS HOURS: If you see a dog or cat in the county with concerning symptoms during normal office hours (Monday-Friday 7:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m) call County Animal Control at 803-502-9000 Ext. 3704. 

CAT OR DOG IN THE COUNTY AFTER HOURS: If you see a dog or cat in the County with concerning symptoms, and it’s after hours, call 911. The dispatcher should contact County Animal Control. 

WILDLIFE IN CITY OR COUNTY: For a suspected rabid wild animal (raccoon, fox, bat, skunk, etc) call a Wildlife Control Operator (WCO):


ABOUT WILDLIFE CONTROL OPERATORS

These individuals and companies are in the business of providing a valuable service — wildlife control. Like any business, they do charge a fee for their services.

Before hiring a WCO, the public is urged to read the SCDNR’s page, Information on Wildlife Removal Services for best practices and other info on hiring a WCO.

The SCDNR does not endorse or guarantee their services, but the agency does post an alphabetically arranged, county-by-county Wildlife Control Operators (WCO) List.

The SCDNR list of WCOs is unfortunately outdated and hit-or-miss. Two recently confirmed contacts for Aiken-area WCOs from the list are Joe Leonard and Andrew Stephens. Their contact info is provided below.

BELOW: Two Aiken area Wildlife Control Officers. Click to enlarge text.

Were You or Your Pet Exposed?

In the case of potential exposure to a rabid animal, (defined by as a bite, scratch or contact with saliva, body fluids or neural tissue from a potentially infected animal), you would still need to follow the advice above to have the animal captured and contained if safely possible.

If you or your pet were bitten or exposed to a potentially rabid animal, you will still need to follow the steps in the infographic, if possible, plus notify SC-DHEC.

A case of potential exposure to a rabid animal — or the bite of any animal — is the ONLY time that SCDHEC would need to be contacted. This step is actually required by law and should be performed by any professionals involved with the situation. You should also call. Contact the Public Health Aiken office at (803) 642-1637 during normal business hours (8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday-Friday) or after hours and on holidays call the SC-DHEC Rabies On-Call Team  (888) 847-0902 (Select Option 2). 

SC-DHEC has a helpful info flow chart for post-exposure advice: When a Person is Exposed to an Animal Suspected of Rabies. The first 3 items on the list are:

  • Thoroughly wash wounds with soap and water.
  • Seek medical attention for the wound.
  • Contact the SCDHEC.

Does the above information need addition or correction? Please drop me a line .

What Happened with the Cat and the Fox?

The cat, who concerned us by loudly growling under the barn for days, and then giving chase when we approached, was just a stray with a very wacky, but surprisingly friendly, personality. He is now living a contented life of leisure in the home of an Aiken area family.

The fox, who was having difficulty standing, was assessed to be healthy with a recoverable leg injury and is hopefully living a life of fox contentment among Aiken’s rapidly-disappearing wild places. The Animal Control Officers and the Wildlife Control Officer who helped us were experienced, knowledgeable professionals with genuine compassion for the animals they meet in their line of work.

ABOVE: Two healthy foxes visiting our yard one year.

We keep a wildlife-friendly yard, meaning we enjoy their occasional presence and respect their wildness by keeping our distance. We sometimes see gray foxes in the yard during mulberry season. Below is a photo from a recent year with two gray foxes foraging on fallen mulberries in late spring. The foxes are very cautious and continually pause in their eating to survey their surroundings, which is how you’d expect a healthy gray fox to behave.

Horse Creek Valley, May 2024

Horse Creek Valley and the Rabbit Hill Landfill

2 Comments
  • Updated 5/20/2024 to add map of proposed landfill property with proximity to Jefferson Elementary School in Bath.
  • Updated 5/22/2024 to correct typographical errors.

Part Two of Two

See also: 
Horse Creek Valley: Aiken County’s Waste Receptacle
A Before and After Photo Gallery

As a wise man once said, before we can turn the page on history, we first need to read the page. The following histories on the spills, fires, accidents, dumps, dumping and landfills in Langley-Bath-Clearwater (LBC) are offered, not to paint a disparaging picture of Horse Creek Valley, but to serve as essential context to frame the issue of yet another landfill proposed for the small LBC community, which has served far too long as receptacle for Aiken’s City and County waste. The article’s odd-looking layout with green tabs is provided to accommodate the choice to either read these background stories — or not — and to easily skim down to the information on Rabbit Hill. A tab-free version can be read here.

The 1970s Accidents and Spills:
Putrid Air, Foul Water and Middle-of-the-Night Scares

May 1975

Langley-Bath-Clearwater residents had been complaining for years of the sickening odors but didn’t know where to take their complaints. In May 1975, a local daughter who had recently returned to Langley to care for her aging parents took up the fight. She was quoted in the local paper, “I hear the dumping late at night– sometimes at 2 in the morning, and I lie in bed thinking who can I go to and what can I do.” She described “a splashing sound of tons and tons of water around midnight twice a week” and told how, after the dumping, a foul smell hovered over the homes near the creek. “It’s putrid,” she said. “It burns your sinuses and makes you sick.”1

One neighbor reported having to leave his house, taking his family to stay with relatives whenever the smell was too strong. Another neighbor said the chemicals were peeling the paint from his house. Others complained of nausea, headaches, upset stomach and dizziness. Val-Chem denied they were dumping anything into the creek.

The local DHEC office had reportedly been filing complaints for years but said their hands were tied. For one thing, there was no way to gauge or measure odors. For another, the EPA had previously granted a grace period for Val-Chem and other Horse Creek industries in 1974. Specifically, in exchange for promises to tie into the regional wastewater treatment system, which was expected to be completed in 1978, these industries could not be prosecuted during the interim for dumping into Horse Creek. 

In response to the May 1975 complaints, a DHEC official allowed, however, that if Val-Chem was violating an earlier agreement to haul their wastes in solid form to the landfill, they could be investigated. 

October 1975

During the dark hours on Sunday morning October 12, Langley residents were awakened by firemen and other civil defense officials going from house to house, banging on doors to warn people not to use the water.2 The day before, residents had noticed an acrid odor in the air and a foul odor and taste to their tap water. This was not unusual, just worse than usual. By midnight Saturday, DHEC officials were on the scene testing the water. The suspected contaminant was ethyl acrylate.

The ethyl acrylate had somehow gotten into the Val-Chem’s private artesian well and was then pumped into the Langley water system — a shared system between the plant and the town. For two days, residents were supplied water from National Guard trucks parked throughout the area. The water system was flushed and the connection between the two water supplies closed off. The artesian well was shut down until further notice. 

As was later learned, it may have been a series of spills that led to the ethyl acrylate seeping into the ground and contaminating the well. Val-Chem and DHEC officials speculated that, alternately, the contamination could have also come from above, from Langley Pond. According to Val-Chem’s vice-president, the plant was careful to avoid spills and didn’t dump on the grounds at the plant. Further, “any plant waste that could be harmful is sealed in drums and taken to the Langley landfill.”3

February 1976

Local residents were awakened by an acrid odor in the wee hours on February 23. DHEC received their first calls around 3:00 a.m. By morning, dozens more had phoned DHEC.  As would later be learned, Val-Chem had spilled some 200 gallons of ethyl acrylate into Horse Creek. Local reactions to the incident, which affected Bath, Langley and Clearwater residents, were varied. Some people claimed they didn’t smell anything, while others complained the odors made them feel profoundly sickened and nauseated. Some feared losing their jobs if they complained. Others downplayed or denied the smell, with several merchants quipping, “Smells like money.”4

Langley Elementary schoolchildren said the fumes from the plant were always present at the school and that, on bad days, they couldn’t go out to recess. They recalled the October incident when the school had been without water for a day. One sixth grader related that the odors were so bad at school, they came through the closed windows. 

In the wake of the February spill, she and another sixth grader got together a petition which was signed by 500 students protesting the earlier contamination of the Langley water system and raising concerns about the long-term effects of the fumes. 

Local resident Mike Duncan, a retired safety engineer, sent certified letters to the governor, members of the state legislature, and various DHEC officials requesting the problem be remedied. 

In the wake of Mr. Duncan’s campaign, DHEC charged Val-Chem with negligence for the February 23 spill of some 200 gallons of ethyl acrylate into Horse Creek and the resulting “noxious vapors and fumes”5 that permeated the ambient air in and about Langley. A show-cause hearing was scheduled for May 9 to consider the charges and fines.

April 1976

Aiken County Civil Defense received 19 calls in yet another middle-of-the-night spill, the odors from which were described by some as “unbearable.” Four DHEC officials kept vigil over the bridge near Langley where “globs of butyl acrylate could be seen floating down Horse Creek.”6

The May 1976 Show-Cause hearing

Because Val-Chem was in the EPA’s grace period and couldn’t be prosecuted for contaminating the river, the issue boiled down to air pollution, whose fumes came from water, not smokestacks, and could only be gauged by the words of the citizens who smelled it. The fact that this unmeasurable piece of evidence — odor — dissipated over time and varied from place to place made the evidence all the more difficult to quantify, much less prove. Val-Chem’s attorney challenged witnesses to describe the odor of ethyl acrylate. Points were drawn on the subjective and individual nature of the sense of smell. DHEC officials were likewise challenged by the attorneys to describe the odor and to quantify the term “undesirable level of pollution,”5 which was part of the language in DHEC’s charges against Val-Chem. The queue of witnesses for the defense, who denied smelling the odor, outnumbered the witnesses who did smell it.

Val-Chem was ultimately found guilty of negligence, but the company was not fined, as it was determined that DHEC did not have the authority to set a fine on odors. 

The issues of pollution in Horse Creek improved in the wake of the 1975-1976 accidents and spills but were by no means gone. A deeper dive into the topic is beyond the scope of this article. The recollection of a 1979 experience on the creek by a former Burnettown resident is provided for reference:

My brother was a born adventurer and blazed a trail from our place to the nearby Horse Creek. He had a canoe, and his idea was to explore the creek. So we went out one day, intending to travel up to the Langley Pond dam. Horse Creek isn’t a huge stream, but it is somewhat manageable by canoe. I was impressed by the wildness of the stream. The overhanging trees, the many streamside plants and flowers, the lack of human presence. It was shortly after we began our trip that I noticed some kind of white deposits, clinging to the roots and rocks in the stream. It looked like melted mats of plastic, maybe a few inches wide, though I suspected it wasn’t melted plastic. It wasn’t just in a few places, but along the entire stream. There were also areas with some kind of red substance on the white “deposits” and elsewhere and on some of the tree roots. My brother laughed and said that maybe we should steer clear of contact with the water. I laughed, too, but I took serious pains to keep from getting any of that water on my skin. I cannot think of another time when I have had such feelings of exhilaration and repulsiveness, all at the same time. 

The 1986 Reimer Drum Fire, an Evacuation Order and More

 

A Fire at the Langley Landfill

On Friday, May 16, 1980, a fire of undetermined origin broke out in the industrial waste area of the Langley landfill. On Saturday morning, the fire was still burning. Aiken County Civil Defense reported there were no hazardous chemicals or waste in the dump, and the fire presented no danger to the residents of the Langley, Bath, or Clearwater communities.7

Bath Resident Files Suit Against Dixie Clay Company

A suit was filed against Dixie Clay Company and its parent, R.T. Vanderbilt Co., alleging pollution of a stream and damage to residential property along the stream. The plaintiff, a Flint Drive resident in Bath, claimed that, since August 1977 and continuing to the present, the clay company had discharged “extremely heavy amounts of kaolin, other forms of siltation, oil, and other non-native substances”8 into a tributary of Horse Creek. The resident claimed that this caused the stream to change color, the fish to die and vegetation to die, and the trees to suffer damage. The plaintiff also alleged that mosquitoes in huge numbers were hatched in the area due to the flooding caused by the silt in the stream.

 Langley Landfill Supervisor Speaks to County Council

In October 1983, a recently terminated Aiken Country landfill supervisor reported to County Council that 339,000 gallons of butyl latex and 2,000 drums of highly volatile waste had been dumped in the Langley landfill between late summer 1975 and April 1976. The Council chairman responded that SLED had investigated the butyl latex in 1982 and found it not hazardous waste. The chairman added the SLED report also mentioned 17 loads of chemicals dumped in the Langley Landfill from the Exxon Corporation’s Summerville, SC location during 1975-1976, about which the SLED report mentioned no health hazard.9 (Note: The author has not examined the 1982 SLED report).

A read of 1982-1984. Aiken County Council meeting minutes finds numerous requests approved by Council for asbestos burial in the Langley Landfill. Among these were requests from Kimberly Clark Corp., Crawford Insulation, Daniel Construction Co., Val-Chem, the Willcox Inn, and the County Engineer with quantities ranging from 180 lbs to 13,827 lbs, and from 75-80 plastic bags to 95 drums filled with asbestos. There was regular debate among Council over the issue of disposing of asbestos in the Langley Landfill, with Councilman Mike Toole opposing the burial in plastic bags and favoring disposal in a Sumter County, SC landfill created for disposal of hazardous waste.

The Hazardous Waste Drums

On March 11, 1986, the local paper reported a story about a large number of drums sitting in the open at the intersection of Dixie Clay Road and Highway 421 in Bath. A concerned local resident reported them to the EPA The drums, approximately 120 of them, had been there for six years but only recently became visible after the old service station that had been housing them was torn down. Some of the drums were stacked helter-skelter at the site; others were lying on their side, some were bulging, others leaking. There were homes nearby, and a child had recently been seen playing in the sand at the site.10

The new owner of the property, who’d purchased the corner property five months earlier intending to put a convenience store on the lot, had actually reported the drums to the EPA in October 1985. At that time, there was no funding in the EPA’s Superfund program to address the piles of drums.

In March 1986, in the wake of a second complaint, and with funding now available, the EPA investigated the contents and found a number of substances, including polymethylene, polyphenylene, polyisocyanate, fluorocarbons, and methylene chloride. The drums, purchased from the Air Force in Oklahoma by the previous owner, Mr. Reimer, were said to be at risk for catching fire, which could potentially produce deadly toxics. “We’re considering all of the drums as hazardous waste,” said Hagan Thompson, spokesman for EPA.11

On March 25-26, 1986, workers with HAZTECH, the EPA’s Superfund contractor, removed the barrels to a less populated, more secure, “undisclosed place in the county.”12 According to Mr. Thompson, the drums would be there for two to three weeks. The agency was considering moving them to the closest available approved hazardous waste disposal site, the GSX landfill in Sumter County.

The 1986 Reimer Drum Fire

On May 13, 1986, a chemical fire broke out on Dixie Clay Co. property, where HAZTECH workers and the EPA had moved the drums seven weeks earlier and were now attempting to convert the chemicals into foam. According to various accounts, some 700-800 Bath area residents were evacuated from their homes. The emergency evacuation lasted about 2 hours and affected those southwest of Bath, downwind from the fire. About 50 firefighters from seven fire departments were called to extinguish the blaze which was, according to the Bath Fire Chief, mostly smoke. 13

Afterward, EPA officials, who were reportedly mystified to understand the fire,14 assured local residents that there would be no long-term health effects from it. A different assessment was given by Dietrich Weyel, assistant professor in the University of Pittsburgh’s occupational health department and considered an expert on the burning of these materials. Addressing the possibility of severe harm that could have occurred from this accident, he described Bath residents as “lucky.”15

On June 6, 1986, local resident Tom King, president of the Aiken County Libertarian Party, delivered a petition with 500 names to U.S. Rep. Butler Derrick. The petitioners made a formal request for a “complete investigation”16 by the federal government into the toxic waste accident.

According to King, “We were led to believe that the toxic chemicals had been removed from the area last month for proper disposal. Instead, the chemicals were moved to an undisclosed location nearby and improperly handled, resulting in 800 people being evacuated and not told details for several hours, and many more nearby residents not even notified of the accident. We demand to know how this happened, who is responsible, why we weren’t told what was going on until it was too late, and what the lasting effects will be.”16

Information on the outcome of that request is stubborn to find today, as are the results of the group’s related demands that the Reimer drums and the ashes from that fire not be buried in the Langley Landfill.

A History on Langley-Bath-Clearwater
Dumps, Dumping and Landfills

In the 1960s-1970s, the use of open dumps and burn pits was phased out across America and replaced with a sanitary landfill system, which involved spreading the daily waste into thin layers, then compacting it and covering it with a layer of soil at the end of each day. Many landfills started as dumps. 

The former City of Aiken landfill on Beaufort Street, for instance, was a dump for most of the century preceding its transformation into a sanitary landfill around 1970. Before and after its transformation, this was the place for disposing of everything from household garbage to business and industrial waste, broken-down appliances and equipment, furniture and mattresses; building materials, tree stumps, leaf mould, and even dead animals. Before 1970, the contents smoldered in open burn piles. With the advent of the EPA in the 1970s, this practice was phased out and replaced with the sanitary landfill system. In 1986, the City of Aiken began phasing out the Beaufort Street landfill entirely, because there was simply no more space on that property to bury trash. 

An aside: Here, it bears mention that the benefactors of the rodents, flies, smoke and stench from Aiken’s City dump were the nearby residents of the predominately working class, lower income, predominantly minority neighborhoods surrounding the dump. As a rule, polluting industries, dumps and landfills are not sited adjacent to middle and upper-class residential areas. Today, the injustice of this dynamic is recognized by the term “environmental justice.” More on that in a moment.

The Langley-Bath-Burnettown and Clearwater stretch of Horse Creek Valley has seen its share of dumps and landfills. The locations of the various, unofficial dumping grounds were primarily a matter of convenience — a nearby vacant lot, a nearly patch of woods, a ditch, a hillside, a pond, a swampy area. Some of the larger dumping areas are remembered by locals today and indicated on the map below.

Click here for larger view.

Two of these dumping areas — Clearwater Swamp and the Huber Pit — became part of the County landfill system during the 1970-era transition from dumps to sanitary landfills.

Clearwater Swamp

The Clearwater Swamp is one of the 9 EPA superfund sites within the 4-mile stretch of Highway 421 that runs between Langley, Bath and Clearwater. The original idea behind this former sand-mining operation-turned-flooded swampland was to use garbage to displace the water. This quickly created an eyesore and heavily polluted swamp. In the mid-1960s, local groups petitioned the governor and South Carolina’s State Pollution Authority to remedy the situation. Change only came with the eventual closure of the Clearwater Swamp by EPA order in 1971.  In the interim, this 40-acre area remained an unregulated dump, and it remained so even after it was designated a sanitary landfill, due to the ongoing difficulty of finding soil to cover the garbage. At days’s end, rather than being covered over with soil, as mandated, the trash would be bulldozed into the swamp by prison labor workers.

In addition to creating a severely polluted swampland, this body of water also became a major breeding ground for mosquitoes. A decision was made to conduct an experimental aerial spraying of what was all but certainly DDT over the swamp and the surrounding lands from Clearwater to Langley to see the effect on mosquitoes and midges. Assurances were made that fish, wildlife and people would be unharmed.17

The Huber Pit and Others

The Huber Pit suffered similar and ongoing difficulties transitioning to a sanitary landfill. The Huber Pit, which was also referred to as the Langley Landfill in records, opened in 1969, was already in use as a dump for household garbage and industrial waste before being slowly transitioned to sanitary landfill practices. 

A 1973 article in the local paper stated that there were 50-75 tons of garbage received per week at the site and that improvements were being made to improve “health hazards” potentially caused by “uncovered garbage” to be operational by January 1974, the targeted date for all the County’s dumping to be turned over to the Huber Pit.18

Until 1974, Aiken County had a total of four dump/landfill sites, all of which suffered similar difficulties with consistent compliance with sanitary landfill practices. By 1974, three of these sites had closed — Clearwater Swamp (1971) and Vaucluse and Wire Road (1973), the latter of which was polluting the nearby Shaw’s Creek, Aiken’s municipal water supply. 

In the coming years, a series of other Huber clay pits would be pressed into service for Aiken County landfills. This arrangement was a win-win for both the clay company and the County. South Carolina mining operations are required to restore former mine sites to a natural state. The reclamation process involves filling the quarries and pits, (which is accomplished through landfill operations), then covering them with soil and planting them with grasses and/or trees.

From about 1969 to 1998, the Huber Clay Company leased its clay pits to Aiken County for $1 per year to use as dumps and landfills. The Huber pit was the first to be used by the County. This was expanded in 1973, Over the next 25 years, other areas of the clay company property were utilized.

The Langley Landfill closed in 1998 after the opening of the Three Rivers Landfill, a regional solid waste facility on Savannah River Site property,

Fifty Years on Langley Pond: 1974 – 2024

The largest concentration of Horse Creek Valley’s pollution was in the Langley-Burnettown-Bath-Clearwater area, with Langley Pond at the epicenter. The advent of the EPA in 1970, then the Clean Water Act in 1972, brought teeth to enforce pollution control efforts that had been ongoing for more than a decade. The opening of the Horse Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant in 1979 ended the dumpling of raw sewage and industrial waste into the creek. With this, the recovery began in earnest. 

By 1984, the biologically dead pond was coming back to life. However, it still retained its legacy of heavy metals and PCBs. These pollutants do not degrade but persist in soil and silt. There were a number of possible remedies considered in the late 1980s, including a prohibitively costly draining and dredging of the pond. Ultimately, recovery was accomplished through self-healing, with time and sediments covering over the contamination.

In 1994, the first rowing events were held at the pond. Before long, these grew to more events, with international teams, including Olympic rowers, coming to Langley Pond to train and practice. In 2004 — twenty-five years after the Horse Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant opened — the pond was tested and deemed safe for swimming. Step by step, the park’s popularity and amenities grew. 

No stranger to hardship, Langley Pond had yet another hurdle to overcome — a leaking dam discovered in 2014 that required draining the pond and a 5-year closure while the County found the means and methods to repair the problem. 

Two years into the closure, the Aiken County Parks, Recreation and Tourist director gave a presentation to City Council in which he enumerated some of the economic losses from the closure.  Most shocking was the nearly $23 million losses to the local economy from events that were canceled or couldn’t be scheduled, among them the Augusta Invitational Regatta, the U.S. Rowing S.E. Youth Regional Regatta, the U.S. Rowing Masters National Championship, and the Southern Intercollegiate Rowing Championships and Scholastic National Championship.19

Today, Langley Pond has reopened and features a swimming area and beach, a disc golf course, a covered picnic shelter and a playground. The pond is also part the 9-mile Horse Creek Water Trail for canoes and paddlers. As Aiken County Council chairman Gary Bunker said in 2022, Langley Park is, “the crown jewel of Aiken County’s park system.”20

2024: The Proposed Rabbit Hill Landfill

In late March 2024, word began to circulate on local social media (see below) about an upcoming, informal meeting with DHEC staff to be held on March 28 at the Midland Valley Fire Department to give the public opportunity to discuss a proposed landfill.

Click above screenshot for full size view.

DHEC had earlier delivered a notice (see below) dated March 14, 2024 to the relatively small number of residents in the Rabbit Hill area of Bath, Burnettown whose properties are located adjacent to the proposed landfill. The letter cites the address of the landfill as “330 Dixie Clay Road in Beech Island, SC.”

Click above document for full-size view.

While this address would sow no confusion for 911 operators, GPS and the US Postal Service, it does seed at least some confusion into the understanding of the location, as this proposed Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill is geographically located in Langley-Bath on clay company property directly adjacent to the former Huber pit dump and the various generations of Langley Landfills. As the crow flies, Beech Island is over 6 miles away.

According to  Hilltop C&D’s application to SC-DHEC, the proposed landfill property boundary encompasses 547 acres. The proposed landfill area, over time, is 292 acres

As posted in the above notice, DHEC also sought comments, with the deadline for these comments continuing through April 13, 2024. 

Aiken resident, Lisa Smith, contacted Justin Koon, manager of DHEC’s Mining and Solid Waste Division requesting they accept additional comments, which he agreed to. Lisa Smith’s letter, published for public readership in the Aiken Chronicles, enumerates some of the citizen concerns and questions that have been raised over the past several weeks. She also raised this important point:

“The community is just beginning to become informed about the proposed landfill. “

Her letter, below, is integral to understanding the Rabbit Hill Landfill issue to date.

Letter to DHEC on the Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill

 For additional reference:

See the Facebook sites, Petition Rabbit Hill Landfill and Friends of Horse Creek Valley.

See the petition opposing the Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill.

See the C&D Hilltop, LLC application file for the Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill

ABOVE: What lies buried in the former unregulated landfill? Is the green water algae or something else? The former clay pit area is where a new landfill is proposed and where a significant amount of groundwater exists. (Screenshots and information provided by Greg Bramlett on the Facebook page, Petition Rabbit Hill Landfill).

BELOW: The proposed Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill is outlined in red. The yellow arrow points to the historic Jefferson Elementary School, attended by some 539 children.

Click above to access the petition opposing the Rabbit Hill Landfill.

Rabbit Hill and Environmental Injustice

Dumps, landfills and polluting industries have historically been sited near marginalized communities, whose residents are given no choice but to bear the brunt of the variously chronic, acute, and epigenetic repercussions to health from these sites, along with the lost quality of life, devalued property, and lack of opportunity or ability to move away. 

Environmental injustice has been a running refrain in Horse Creek Valley and, in particular, in the Langley-Bath-Clearwater area — the location of 9 of Horse Creek Valley’s 14 EPA Superfund sites — and the place upon which the City of Aiken and County have been relying to bear the almost the entire burden of waste.

The EPA defines Environmental Justice as:

“The just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people:

(i) are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and

(ii) have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.”

– Executive Order 14096 – Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All

DHEC also factors environmental justice as part of decision-making processes. First on DHEC’s list of Environmental Justice Principles, which are part of their “mission of “improving the quality of life for all South Carolinians,” is this:

“Ensure that Environmental Justice Communities are Meaningfully Involved and Routinely Considered Throughout Decision-Making Processes.”

The specific demographics of the residents who would live proximate to the Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill are difficult to parse, because (as discussed in Part 1) the U.S. census no longer counts the unincorporated community of Bath as a discrete population. For most intents and purposes, the residents of Bath, Langley, and Clearwater are increasingly lumped in with Warrenville and, in some places, Beech Island.

Lacking census data, adequate inferences can be drawn from the local elementary schools in Gloverville, Bath and Clearwater, where 100% of the students in these schools are counted as low income.

For more reading:
Environmental Working Group: ’Forever Chemicals’ at landfills threaten environmental justice communities
StoryMaps: The Link Between Environmental Injustice and Landfills
North Carolina Environmental Justice Network: Landfills

Underground Fires: Could They Happen Here?

The science of subterranean or underground landfill fires is still in its infancy. The learning curve on this is growing as more communities find themselves living next door to old landfills. There are an estimated ~400 of these per year, according to the article, “How Do You Put Out a Subterranean Fire Beneath a Mountain of Trash?” (see below), with some of them burning for months. Will this be the future of some of these poorly constructed dumps in the Valley? 

For More Reading
Waste Advantage Magazine: Subterranean Landfill Fires: The Cause and Solution
USA Today USA Today: “Landfills catch fire, briefly, all over America. Why did one in Alabama burn for months?”
FiveThirtyEight: How Do You Put Out A Subterranean Fire Beneath A Mountain Of Trash?
LA Times: Uncontrolled Chemical Reactions Fuel Crises at L.A. County’s Two Largest Landfills

The causes of the fires are often a mystery, started underground by unknown chemical reactions. These fires can happen in old limestone mines, and they can happen in landfills with special composite liners. These are not really fires as much as smoldering heat pockets that lack the oxygen to turn into full-fledged flames, so they merely smolder, emitting a stench-filled smoke that pervades throughout the area. Residents have no choice but to close up their houses and avoid going outdoors. For obvious reasons, selling their houses and moving isn’t an option. 

There are a number of factors that can increase the risk for an underground landfill fire: inadequately compacted layers; inadequate layering of soil; settling in the landfill site; water percolating to a particular spot and triggering bacterial processes or a chemical reaction of the contents. 

As has been shown in histories of the 1970s and 1980s, the old Huber pit dump (also an EPA superfund site) and the various iterations of Langley Landfills contain both unknown and questionable contents. What risk factors exist at this site for underground fires?

The questions regarding potential fires and other hazards are many, among them:

  • Questions about the visibly discolored pool (see photo earlier in the article) in one area of the landfill adjacent and the potential role of leaching as the cause.
  • Questions about the stability of hillsides and berms have drawn concern from one local engineer.
  • Questions, long asked and unanswered, on the landfill’s contents from the 1970s-1980s and the allegations of illegal dumping.
  • Questions on the potential for underground fires in the older landfills, given the specifics of this site’s history.
  • Questions on the fairness of subjecting this small community to such a preponderance of waste storage, diesel engine traffic, methane emissions, and other accompanying hazards and risks, including fires, of living near a landfill.
  • Questions on the effects and the risks to the school children at the nearby Jefferson Elementary School.

In Closing….

Today, Horse Creek Valley is coming back to life. The creek, once biologically dead, has been revived. The fish and the plants have returned. Parks have opened. Swimming holes and beaches have been created. Old mills, closed for decades, are being opened back up to possibility.

This is the future of Horse Creek Valley if given time, vision and an ongoing determination to leave the waste, dumps and destruction in the past.

___________________

  1. Wendell, Debby, “Val-Chem Housewife’s Target,” Aiken Standard, May 15, 1975.
  2. Higgs, Eric “Steps Taken to Correct Water Supply Contamination,” Aiken Standard, February 13, 1976
  3. Lawrence, Kay, “Authorities Continue Search for Chemical That Fouled Water.” The Augusta Chronicle, October 23, 1975
  4. Smithwick, Lin, “Valchem Residents Complain; Merchants Say it Smells Like Money,” Aiken Standard, March 5, 1976.
  5. Smithwick, Lin, “Residents Upset at Val-Chem Smell,” Aiken Standard, March 14, 1976
  6. Smithwick, Lin, “Val-Chem Reactor Release Fouls Air, Water,” Aiken Standard, April 8, 1976.
  7. Newspaper brief, “Landfill Fire,” Aiken Standard, May 19, 1980
  8. “Suit Against Kaolin Firm Filed by Bath Homeowner,” Aiken Standard, December 2, 1980.
  9. Baker, Bill, “Landfill Contents are Questioned Again,” Aiken Standard, October 19, 1983.
  10. Burgess, George, “Waste Sits By the Road – Money Stops Removal,” Aiken Standard, March 11, 1986
  11. Associated Press, “Toxic Chemical Found on Aiken County Site,” The State, March 28, 1986
  12. Burgess, George, “Hazardous Waste Moving from Bath,” Aiken Standard, March 26, 1986.
  13. Associated Press, ”Solutions Catch Fire at Bath During Chemical Cleanup,” The State, May 14, 1986.
  14. Poplin, Kyle, “Chemical Fire Cause Mystifies Officials,” Augusta Chronicle, May 15, 1986.
  15. Poplin, Kyle, “Chemical Ashes May Be Buried in Aiken Landfill” Augusta Chronicle, May 16, 1986.
  16. Langley, Carl, “Residents of Bath Seek Federal Probe of Waste Accident,” Augusta Chronicle, June 6, 1986.
  17. “Airplane Mosquito Attack Set,” Aiken Standard, May 18, 1961.
  18. Rich, Judy, “Langley Landfill to Become State Model,” Aiken Standard, December 21, 1973.
  19. Brown, Dan. “Millions in Revenue Lost from Langley Pond Closure,” Aiken Standard, February 23, 2016. 
  20. Biles, Dede, “Langley Park Pond named ‘a gem’ in Horse Creek Valley,” Aiken Standard, February 10, 2023.

Aiken County, Horse Creek Valley, May 2024

Horse Creek Valley: Aiken County’s Waste Receptacle 

4 Comments

Should Horse Creek Valley be asked to bear the burden of yet another landfill? 

Part One of Two


See also:
Horse Creek Valley and the Rabbit Hill Landfill
A Before and After Photo Gallery

By Laura Lance
May 10, 2024

For much of its history, Horse Creek Valley and its namesake waterway have served as the receptacle for Aiken County’s industrial waste, construction debris and household garbage. The recently-learned plan by Hilltop C&D, LLC to relocate to Bath, SC and create the ~530 acre “Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill” compels a closer look at the past history of waste and dumping in this area. Particular focus is placed on the neighboring towns of Langley, Bath and Clearwater, which reside on a four-mile stretch of Highway 421 and whose shared history over the past 60 years includes having at least 9 of Horse Creek Valley’s 14 EPA Superfund sites and at least 4 Aiken County dumps and landfills. 

One would be hard-pressed to find a more beautiful and ecologically diverse landscape in Aiken County than the Horse Creek Valley. One would be equally hard-pressed to find a landscape outside of the Savannah River Plant boundaries that has been more violated by industry. It is, of course, beyond the scope of this article to cover the full scale of soil, water and air pollution in the Horse Creek Valley over the years. The examples presented here should suffice to paint a picture of a place that has shouldered more than its fair share of destruction from industry and waste and should not be asked to give one more ounce of land to that purpose. 

Horse Creek begins near South Carolina’s Fall Line and takes a meandering path toward the Savannah River. Along the way, it passes through the Valley, winding down through the textile mill villages and their industries that derived power from this creek to run their factories. 

Foggy morning in Vaucluse. Photo by Laura Lance.

First is the village of Vaucluse, founded by French Huguenots in 1828. Vaucluse is the site of the oldest mill village in South Carolina. It was also the first cotton mill in the Valley and possibly the first cotton mill in the state. Vaucluse’s historic district is on the National Historic Register. This picturesque village is set around a lovely mill pond that, in earlier generations, was the setting for community picnics, swimming, fishing and baptisms. Today’s pond owners have largely barred local residents from the pond. The mill has been closed for decades and the surrounding village has been struggling with decline for nearly as long.

The Vaucluse Dump

The Vaucluse Dump operated from 1950-1973 on an 18-acre tract owned by the Graniteville Company for most of that time. Aiken County took over operations around 1969. The dump was sited just to the north of the Vaucluse village boundary, the nearest house only 1600 feet away. During its latter years, this dump was supposed to have operated as a sanitary landfill, which required that garbage be buried and covered with a layer of soil at the end of each day. In practice, chronic issues with inadequate staffing and broken-down machinery left the garbage uncovered for days at a time. According to an August 1970 account in the local paper, the Vaucluse dump had received overwhelming complaints concerning “suffocating smoke, wharf rats, flies and packs of wild dogs”1 The newly-created EPA rolled out regulations in 1972 that led to the closure of numerous private and public dumps and landfills in Aiken County, including the Vaucluse dump. 

Twenty years later,  the EPA conducted studies and found the two springs below the Vaucluse dump contaminated with mercury, lead, chromium and cyanide. Today’s “Vaucluse Pond Fish Consumption Advisory,” located on the SC-DHEC, website likely stems from the legacy of that dump, and of the Vaucluse mill itself, which was the site of a contemplated Brownsfield clean-up effort in 2023 that never commenced. The sign announcing that effort has since been taken down. 

Brownsfield clean-up sign at the site of the historic Vaucluse Mill

Horse Creek plummets over a 42-foot drop at the Vaucluse dam beside the mill as it resumes its journey 3 miles south, as the crow flies, to the town of Graniteville.

Part of the rocky course of Horse Creek. Photo by Gary Dexter.

Along the way, the creek passes through the deep shade of rich bottomland forests and swamp lands, gathering more water from springs. Shortly before it reaches Graniteville, the sky opens to a clearing at Flat Rock Pond. Beyond that is Flat Rock Dam. These waterways, woods and landscapes were once open to local citizens for swimming, fishing, exploring and recreation but, as with Vaucluse Pond,  they have since been made off-limits to locals. 

Graniteville is arguably the heart of Horse Creek Valley, its historic textile mill and village, founded in 1845 by William Gregg, was certainly the nexus for the kingdom of textile industries, mill villages, and the communities of people that followed — generations upon generations of families who were employed by these mills, their jobs passing throughout time from grandfather to father, mother, son and daughter. The histories of Graniteville and William Gregg are readily found online and must be read to truly appreciate this gem of a place and its community that has survived despite the economic ravages dealt by the death of the mills that began in the 1970s and finally came to a halt in 2006, its demise attributed to damages from the 2005 Graniteville Train Crash, which released a deadly cloud of chlorine gas that took nine lives and injured countless more, leaving in its wake a landscape cauterized by the toxic chemical .

The Graniteville canal before the 2005 train crash. Photo by Gary Dexter.

Graniteville Dumping

It would be difficult to overstate the devastation caused to the waters and lands by the collective injuries from industrial chemicals, heavy metals, dyes, solvents, pesticides and raw sewage dumped around and into Horse Creek along its course from Vaucluse to the Savannah River. The Graniteville Company’s contributions to this body load are immeasurable. Even when regulations were finally enacted in the 1970s, there were grace periods, special allowances, and a lack of adequate oversight and monitoring which allowed the contamination to perpetuate unabated. To cite just one example, which was reported in the local newspaper, the Gregg Division of Graniteville Company was, at one point, said to be dumping some 845 lbs of chromium per day2 into Horse Creek. 

In addition to the wholesale dumping of chemicals, industrial waste and sewage from the mill into Horse Creek, there were numerous other dumping grounds scattered around the Graniteville community that were receptacles to a mix of industrial, commercial and household garbage and waste. Some of these were sited near schools. One was near the base of the cemetery hill on Graniteville Highway. Athletic fields were later built atop these dumping grounds, which led to stories of Friday night football players sliding into the glass shards that were embedded in the dirt. The drainage ditch adjacent to the football field was a legendary bottle-digger’s paradise, chock full of antique ink bottles from the nearby Leavelle McCampbell school. 

In the 1980s, Graniteville Company and the other mills below it on Horse Creek were the subject of numerous “Significant Industrial Pollution Violations” citations by the South Carolina DHEC. In the 1990s, and to no avail, a local group of parents of Byrd Elementary students banded together as CHASE (Citizens Helping Achieve a Safe Environment),2 stood up to the polluters and demanded that the EPA do better monitoring. It is unknown to this author if the hazards of the dumping grounds near any of these schools and parks were ever evaluated. 

This isn’t to say that the knowledge and awareness of the contamination began with the advent of the EPA in 1970. It began much earlier and was empowered by a 1950 pollution control act that gave birth to the South Carolina Pollution Control Authority. Headlines in the 1950s and 1960s featured the stories of pollution, dumps and landfills, which were inextricably linked to, and situated with special intensity, in areas of industry and poverty. These local headlines grew in pitch and number during campaign seasons, as Horse Creek Valley, the political powerhouse of Aiken County at the time, was struggling with the effects of household and industrial waste. Local citizens were empowered to act, and did so, under the belief they might have some say over the squalor and stench being visited onto their towns.

In 1965, a headline in the local paper read, “ Horse Creek Pollution Petition Goes to Governor.”3 A group of local citizens, led by Aiken attorney Marion Smoak, asked for a study of the streams, and further appealed that the SC Department of Health, Education and Welfare obtain a federal grant to begin long-range cleanup of Horse Creek. The petition pointed out that the 12-mile strip of Horse Creek running from Graniteville to the heavy concentration of textile plants in the Langley-Bath-Clearwater area was an unclassified stream open to the unrestricted dumping of industrial waste and raw sewage. The petition — which termed the stream a hazard to the health of the people and said that pollution deprived them of an otherwise useful waterway — was signed by 3145 residents of the area. The petition sought a study of the area by the state and federal aid to help with the cleanup of “excessive pollution of Big Horse Creek.”

Records of any remedy found through this petition are difficult to locate. It is known, however, that in 1971, Horse Creek and Langley Pond were described in an EPA study as “biologically dead”4 with high levels of chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other heavy metals and chemicals. There were no fish, no insects, no life in the creek. 

Below Graniteville is the community of Madison, followed by the mill village of Warrenville, where Horse Creek is joined by Sand River, a tributary from the east that originates in Aiken’s urban forest, Hitchcock Woods. From Sand River, Horse Creek has inherited over the years the sometimes high levels of E. Coli from equine sources, aged septic systems, and leakage/overflow of the sewage pipes routed through Hitchcock Woods.5

Warrenville 

Warrenville was built around the Warren Mill, which was in operation from 1898-1982, the latter years under the ownership of the Graniteville company. Unlike the other mills in the Valley, the Warren Mill, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, is currently being restored to create a luxury apartment community.

June 2024 images of the ongoing transformation of the Warrenville Mill into the Warren Mill Lofts.

From Warrenville, Horse Creek takes a southwesterly turn as it continues its journey through the rest of the Valley and toward the Savannah River, the creek’s course running more or less parallel to most of Highway 421.

Town signs. Photos by Laura Lance

The towns along this 4-lane highway are strung like beads on a necklace beginning with Stiefeltown at the eastern end of 421, and continuing westward to the towns of Warrenville, Mixville, Gloverville, Langley, Burnettown, Lynwood, Bath and Clearwater. If not for the road signs, a traveler would miss the transition from one town to the next. 

In fact, if not for those signs, a traveler might never know these places existed. This is because, according to the US Postal Service, the US Census Bureau, and the GPS and 911 systems, nearly all of the addresses in this stretch of Horse Creek Valley are now in Warrenville. It didn’t used to be this way, and one could go down a rabbit hole trying to explain the changes. Suffice it to say that there is contradictory information regarding the locations of these spots on the map. For instance, one document may list Langley Dam Park as being located in Warrenville; in another document, it is located in Langley. The same goes for the Langley Landfill, which is sometimes listed in Warrenville, other times listed in Beech Island, (which is some 6.76 miles away as the crow flies), and other times listed in its true geographical location — Langley, South Carolina. From here, a conversation could begin on the disappearance of towns and what this means for the communities of people who live there. 

Gloverville

For everything that Horse Creek Valley communities have shared in common over the years, there were always certain divisions. Some of this stemmed from the physical distance between the eastern and western side of the Valley. Some stemmed from the ownership of the mills and even the mill towns during much of their earlier history. The Graniteville Company owned the mill towns of Vaucluse, Graniteville and Warrenville, while United Merchants and Manufacturing owned the mill towns of Langley, Bath and Clearwater. A certain rivalry existed between the owners of these villages.

Standing between the two worlds was Mixville, then Gloverville, whose history began before the existence of the textile industry. Possibly the oldest European settlement on present-day Highway 421, Gloverville was said to be the site of an early sawmill dating to the early 1800s. Somewhere between Mixville and Gloverville, Horse Creek widens to form the head of Langley Pond. 

Langley

Situated halfway between Aiken and Augusta is Langley. Power for the Langley Mill was provided from the dam at Langley Pond. The Langley Mill, originally called the Kalmia Mill, was built before the Civil War and underwent numerous expansions and changes over the years, including the 1870 name change to “Langley,” which was given to both the mill and the town. The Langley Mill was bought by United Merchants and Manufacturers in the early 1900s. 

The old Langley Railroad Depot, restored and repurposed to house the Midland Valley Public Library. Photo by Wren Dexter.

In addition to the Langley Mill, United Merchants also owned the Seminole Mill, Clearwater Finishing Plant, and Bath Mill. The United Merchants land holdings in the Valley were huge, including most of the property fronting the Aiken Augusta Highway from the Midland Valley Country Club to the Clearwater-Belvedere Road; the land surrounding Clearwater and Langley Ponds, and the mill villages of Langley, Bath and Clearwater.

This is to say that, for much of the 20th century, almost the entirety of the Valley was owned by the industries of Graniteville Company, United Merchants, and the owners of the various kaolin strip mining operations. By the time Horse Creek arrived to Langley Pond, it was already carrying an ample load of industrial waste and raw sewage from upstream.

The Langley Dumps

Langley Pond, itself, was site for much dumping from various industries and individuals over the years– the heavy metals and chemicals gathering into the pond’s sediments, creating a toxic layer that remains there to this day. As earlier mentioned, by the 1970s, the pond was devoid of fish and all life, the trees and vegetation at the pond’s edges dead. According to locals, it had been this way for 20 years.

The Langley Mill, located beside the Langley Pond dam, ceased operation early in the 20th century, the building converting to warehouse storage for United Merchants. The mill had survived numerous difficulties and setbacks over its history, between lightning strikes, fires, financial struggles and flooding before finally burning down in 1946. From its ashes rose a chemical factory called Val-Chem, which manufactured a broad range of chemicals for the textile and paper industries including resins, surfactants, dyes, solvents and agents for textile finishing. For the first 25 years of its history, there was no oversight of Val-Chem’s activities regarding dumping into local lands and waters.

The red star marks the site of the former Val-Chem Chemical Co. located near the Langley Pond Dam. Click image for full size view.

The odors from the plant — an accepted fact of life for locals — had been ongoing for years. With the advent of the EPA in 1970, local waterways, including the Savannah River, began to come under study. In 1972, the high levels of chromium in the river were traced to its Horse Creek tributary. Horse Creek and its own tributary, Little Horse Creek, were determined to be “grossly polluted from the discharge of more than 11 million gallons per day (MGD) of untreated textile mill wastes and more than 1.3 MGD of raw and inadequately treated sanitary wastes.”6

In March 1972, the EPA called for an “immediate halt”7 on the dumping of chromium by three industries upstream — Graniteville’s Gregg Mill, Val-Chem Chemical Co. and Clearwater Finishing Plant. This “immediate halt” was softened to a recommendation that the companies submit a feasibility study by October 1, 1972 on removal of chromium from their discharges. At some point among the studies and discussions among local, state and federal officials. it became clear that the problem of pollution and water quality was both a Horse Creek problem and a regional problem. 

In May 1974, the Aiken County Public Service Authority held public hearings on a plan to build a regional waste treatment plant at the junction of Horse Creek and the Savannah River. This was to be completed in 1978. It opened in 1979.

In exchange for promises to tie into the regional wastewater treatment system, Val-Chem, Clearwater Finishing and Gregg Mill received temporary discharge permits from the EPA. During this grace period, by agreement, these companies could not be prosecuted for polluting Horse Creek. Part of the deal included an agreement that Val-Chem would haul their wastes to the landfill in a solid form.8 This both did and did not happen. 

____________________

Next: Part 2 of 2. Topics to include the 1975-76 Val-Chem accidents; the school children’s pollution petition; the Clearwater Swamp Dump; the Reimer Drums, and more.


In related news….

See the May 9, 2024 local report on this area from WJBF News in Augusta, GA
Locals React to Potential Rabbit Hill Landfill in Bath, SC: “We didn’t even know about the landfill.”

See also the local petition on the proposed Rabbit Hill Landfill which is currently collecting signatures:
Halt the Construction of Rabbit Hill Class 2 Landfill

References:

  1. Hindman, Emily. “Garbage Problems Continue to Mount,” Aiken Standard, August 17, 1970.
  2. Burris, Roddie “Clean-up Lag Irks Citizens: Impatient Valley Demands Action,” Aiken Standard, January 25, 1994.
  3. UPI, Columbia, SC “Horse Creek Pollution Petition Goes to Governor,” Aiken Standard, December 7, 1965.
  4. ”DHEC to Give Update on Langley Pond,” Aiken Standard, December 6, 1987.
  5. ”Tracking Fecal Pollution Sources in the Upper Reaches of the Horse Creek Watershed in Aiken County, SC” S.M.Harmon, A.E. Bodie, K.A. Fettro, J.R. Yates, University of South Carolina Aiken, Department of Biology and Geology, Aiken, SC.
  6. Craw, Steve, “Aiken County Feeling Bite of Pollution Teeth,” Aiken Standard, April 17, 1972.
  7. Craw, Steve, “Joint Pollution Effort Ordered,” Aiken Standard, March 24, 1972.
  8. Wendell, Debby, “Val-Chem Housewife’s Target,” Aiken Standard, May 15, 1975.
House of Raeford Chicken Plant, March 2024, New Development & Industry, Water Usage

Looking Back: 35 Years of Headlines

2 Comments
Part 2 of Two
See Part 1: Looking Forward: What Kind of Future Could Project Sunny Buy?

If past is prologue, what can be said of a company that, on the one hand, gives generously of funding and efforts to causes and non-profits in its communities and, on the other hand, takes much from its communities?

Reading headlines from over the past 35 years leaves little doubt that both are true. An internet search for “House of Raeford donates” will produce an exhaustive gallery of images documenting the good deeds performed by this company.

Scratching a little below the surface, other headlines emerge with stories of a company whose record on violating environmental regulations and worker safety has been described as “abysmal.” This is not to single out House of Raeford. Similar histories exist among other major players in the poultry processing and slaughterhouse industry.

In the course of reading these stories, which span decades, certain patterns begin to emerge. Histories repeat. Issues that existed four decades ago persist to this day.

Below are some of the headlines from the past 35 years — stories that tend to pass like ships in the night until they personally affect us. Most of the of articles involve House of Raeford, whose stories are highlighted in gray.

1989

Inside the Slaughterhouse
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost”
By Barbara Goldaftas. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989
Excerpt: “Perhaps the most serious threat at the processing plants, however, is the risk of disabling injury. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, poultry workers suffer higher rates of illness and injury — rates that are more than twice the average for all workers in the private sector. Poultry processing is ‘more debilitating than any industry I know,’ says Sarah Fields-Davis, director of the Center for Women’s Economic Alternatives, an advocacy group based in Ahoskie, North Carolina. ‘I have seen women without an arm or fingers, with half a hand.’”

”I feel what women feel”
An interview with Donna Bazemore,poultry worker turned organizer.
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost.”
By Bob Hall. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989.
“….Once you go through the door, everything changes. Your whole attitude. When you come out, you’re like two separate people. It has to do with the stress and pressure they put you under.”

Chicken Empires
From the 3-part series: “Ruling the Roost.”
By Bob Hall. Southern Exposure. Summer 1989.
Excerpt: “With its gushing flow of profits, one wonders why the industry doesn’t have the “courage” — to use Don Tyson’s word — to slow down its processing lines, treat its workers with respect, give their contract growers a measure of security, and still produce a product people are happy to eat? Must Frank Perdue and the 47 other chicken kings treat the world as a competitive jungle forever? ‘Perdue showed everybody how to really market chickens,’ says Tex Walker, an organizer with UFCW during its unsuccessful campaign in Accomac. ‘Now somebody needs to show him how to treat people like human beings.’”

2000

River Park Planners Want Plant Relocated
By Bridget A. Sheldon. The State. December 29, 2000
Chicken processing facility occupies coveted site beside the Congaree River.

2006

Civil Action: Cally R. Forrest, Jrl, and Suzanne Forrest, Plaintiffs, vs. Columbia Farms, Inc., Columbia Farms Distribution, Inc., Columbia Farms of Georgia, Inc., And The House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Defendants.

2007

House of Horrors: Turkey Slaughterhouse Investigation Reveals Sickening Cruelty
Mercy for Animals. May 18, 2007.
Excerpt: A Mercy For Animals undercover investigation takes you behind the closed doors of one of the country’s largest poultry slaughterhouses — House of Raeford Farms, Inc. in Raeford, North Carolina. In January and February of 2007 an MFA investigator worked in the “live-hang” area of the plant (where live birds are snapped into shackles on the slaughter line), secretly filming egregious acts of animal cruelty with a hidden camera. 

Denny’s Suspends Buying Poultry
The State. May 23, 2007.
Denny’s, Inc. has suspended poultry purchases from house of Raeford Farms in North Carolina pending further investigation into allegations of mistreatment of animals before slaughter. The allegations had surfaced and a video shot and a house of Raeford facility by representatives of an animal welfare group, the restaurant operator said in a statement.

2008

Worker Abuse Documented Yet Again in the South’s Poultry Industry
By Sue Sturgis. Facing South. February 13, 2008.
The next time you pick up a House of Raeford product at the grocery store — Black Forest Turkey Ham, perhaps, or maybe some Chicken Tenders — you should stop and think about the human suffering that’s not listed among the ingredients. This week the Charlotte Observer is featuring an investigative series titled “The Cruelest Cuts,” examining the plight of workers at the poultry giant’s Carolina facilities. A team of reporters and editors spent almost two years analyzing documents and interviewing more than 200 poultry workers — most of them Latino, and many in this country illegally. The team found compelling evidence the North Carolina-based company failed to report serious injuries such as broken bones and carpal tunnel syndrome, plant officials often dismissed workers’ requests for medical care, and regulators failed to take action to protect the workers. 

Poultry Firm’s Safety Records Raise Questions About Workers’ Welfare
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 10, 2008.
Excerpt: “In an industry rife with danger, house of Raeford Farms depicts itself as a safe place to work. Company records suggest relatively few workers are injured each year as they kill, cut and package millions of turkeys and chickens. But a Charlotte Observer investigation shows the N.C. poultry giant with S.C. plants in West Columbia, Greenville and Hemingway has masked the extent of injuries behind its factory walls.”

Poultry Production Has High Human Cost
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 12, 2008.
Excerpt: “Five current and former House of Raeford supervisors and human resources administrators, including two who were involved in hiring, said some of the companies managers know they employ undocumented workers. ‘If immigration came and looked at our files, they take half the plant,’ said Caitlin Davis, a former Greenville plant human-resources employee. “

Painful realities
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 13, 2008.
Excerpt: “When injured workers require treatment beyond first aid, employers also must record those injuries on federal logs; too many such injuries can draw scrutiny from workplace safety inspectors. In this environment, medical gatekeepers often face a choice: provide workers with the care they need or save the company money.”

Injured Sent Back to Work
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. February 14, 2008.
Excerpt: “House of Raeford boasts that its Greenville plant has gone more than 7 million hours without a “lost time accident,”meaning no worker has been injured badly enough to miss an entire shift. But according to the company’s own safety logs, Vicente was among at least eight workers at the plant who suffered amputated fingers or broken bones— all during the time the plant claimed to have millions of safe working hours dating back to 2002. Managers have kept the streak alive by requiring injured workers to return to the plant — in some cases hours after medical procedures.“

Congress Takes on the Poultry Industry: Hearings called after newspaper put spotlight on worker safety.
By Kerry Hall, Ames Alexander, Franco Ordonez and Peter St. Onge. The Charlotte Observer. February 17, 2008.
Excerpt: “In a six-part series that began last Sunday, the Observer reported that House of Raeford, which has seven processing plants in the Carolinas, had masked the extent of injuries behind its plant walls. Employees say the company, which has plants in West Columbia, Greenville and Hemmingway, has ignored, intimidated, or fired workers who were hurt on the job.”

5 Supervisors Arrested
The State/McClatchy Newspapers. June 19, 2008.
Excerpt: Federal agents on Wednesday arrested a fifth supervisor at a house of Raeford Farms poultry plant in Greenville as part of an ongoing investigation into alleged immigration violations. On Tuesday, immigration officials arrested four other supervisors after finding what appeared to be false information on employment records kept at the company’s Greenville chicken processing plant, according to Kevin McDonald, first assistant US attorney for South Carolina. 

Poultry plant manager arrested.
The State. July 11, 2008
Excerpt: “A manager at a Greenville poultry factory under federal investigation was arrested Wednesday and charged with telling employees to use falsified immigration documents, according to court filings.”

Five More Workers Face Charges
Franco Ordonez, Kerry Hall, The Charlotte Observer. August 16, 2008. Excerpt: “In a February series on workplace safety in the poultry industry, the Charlotte Observer reported that some house of Raeford managers knowingly employed undocumented workers, according to five current and former supervisors and human resource administrators. Former supervisors have said the plant prefers undocumented workers because they are less likely to question work conditions for fear of losing their jobs or being deported.” 

Three more poultry workers arraigned
The State. Compiled from reports by The Greenville News, and The Charlotte Observer. August 30, 2008
Excerpt: “Three more house of Raeford Farms workers were arranged this week on charges of using fake IDs to work for the company’sGreenville plant, which continues to be at the center of an illegal immigration investigation. The men pleaded not guilty, and detention orders were placed on them because they were in the country illegally. “

Will next raid be at Columbia Farms?
Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. September 6, 2008
Excerpt: “This summer’s arrests of 11 House of Raeford workers in Greenville shocked its S.C. work force. Dozens of workers have since left their jobs. The company is hiring fewer, if any, Latinos and has turned to state prisons to fill its production lines in West Columbia and Greenville.”

Feds Hold 300, Probe Hiring
Ames Alexander, Franco Ordonez, Franco. The Charlotte Observer. October 8, 2008
Excerpt: “Federal authorities conducted an immigration raid at Greenville’s Columbia Farms plant Tuesday, detaining more than 300 workers and searching for evidence of illegal hiring practices. As shifts at the chicken processing plant were changing at about 9 a.m., about 100 agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security raided the facility. When agents arrived, workers began running down hallways crying and screaming, said Herbert Rooker, a janitor who wore a blue band on his wrist, indicating agents had determined he was in the country legally. Rocker said he had to duck into a bathroum to avond a stampede of people.

Gallery: Immigration Raid at Poultry Plant.
Agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security executed a search warrant at the House of Raeford’s Columbia Farms chicken processing plant in Greenville, S.C., Tuesday, Oct. 7, 2008. Federal agents detained more than 300 suspected illegal immigrants in the raid at the plant that has been under investigation for months.(AP Photo/Greenville News, George Gardner)

Poultry Workers Torn Apart by Arrests
The State/Associated Press. October 9, 2008
Excerpt: “A day after the raid, families waited to bear from loved ones at detention centers. Meanwhile, businesses and streets were vacant because those not rounded up stayed home, afraid agents would return.”

Greenville Area Residents Aid Families of Suspected Illegals.
Post and Courier/Associated Press. October 12, 2008.
Excerpt: “The Greenville News reported Sunday that the Alliance for Collaboration with the Hispanic Community and local residents have met to identify lawyers, counselors, educators and interpreters to help the families. They also are trying to raise money and find people to care for the children of the jailed workers.”

Illegal workers set for deportation.
Post and Courier. November 19, 2008. 
Excerpt: “Ten former workers at a Greenville poultry plant who were in the U.S. illegally have pleaded guilty in federal court. Prosecutors said three of the men pleaded guilty Wednesday to false use of a Social Security number to get jobs at the House of Raeford’s Columbia Farms plant.”

Poultry plant fined
The State. November 21, 2008
“North Carolina regulators have cited a chicken processing company for 49 serious safety code violations, many involving hazardous chemicals. The Charlotte Observer reported the $178,000 fine levied against House of Raeford Farms is significant for the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration.”

2009

South Carolina poultry plant manager faces immigration charge
Post and Courier/Associated Press. April 15, 2009.
Excerpt: “Prosecutors say Barry Cronic began hiring illegal immigrants at Columbia Farms in Greenville in 2000, and kept hiring them until a raid last October. The raid found more than 300 people working at the plant who were in the county illegally.”

Poultry Plant Official Pleads Not Guilty
The State. May 15, 2009.
Excerpt: “The personnel manager of a Greenville poultry plant has not guilty to knowingly harboring illegal aliens.”

Feds Indict Columbia Farms
The State/Associated Press. July 17, 2009.
Excerpt: “The company that runs a South Carolina poultry plant knew it man managers were hiring illegal immigrants at a facility rated in October, federal prosecutor said, and an indictment release Thursday.”

Poultry Plant Manager Enters Plea
The State/Associated Press. July 31, 2009.
“Columbia Farms Greenville plant chief pleads, not guilty in immigration case. “

10 Workers Sue Columbia Farms Plant.
The Greenville News. August 1, 2009.
Excerpt: “Ten former employees have sued the Columbia Farms chicken processing plant in Greenville, alleging the company refused to pay overtime that they worked and, in one case, fired a worker after accusing her of faking a workplace injury.”

OSHA Seeks to Get Better Handle on Injuries
By Kerry Hall Singe and Ames Alexander. The Charlotte Observer. October 5, 2009.
Excerpt: “An Observer investigation found that North Carolina-based House of Raeford Farms failed to record some workplace injuries.
The poultry company’s 800-worker plant in West Columbia reported no musculoskeletal disorders over four years. Experts say that’s in-conceivable. MSDs, including carpal tunnel syndrome, are the most common work-related injuries afflicting poultry workers. The company’s Greenville plant has boasted of a five-year safety streak with no lost-time injuries. But the plant kept that streak alive by bringing injured employees back to the factory hours after surgery. House of Raeford says it follows the law and strives to protect workers.”

Poultry Giant to Pay Fine.
By James Alexander and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer. November 4, 2009.
Excerpt: Columbia Farms will pay a $1.5 million fine and will be required to change its hiring practices under an agreement that will allow it to avoid a criminal conviction on federal immigration charges. The deal will also allow two indicted managers at the poultry company’s Greenville plant to avoid criminal prosecution, provided they enter a supervised program for a year. The agreement, finalized just hours before the start of the scheduled criminal trial in federal court in Greenville on Tuesday, will give N.C.-based parent company House of Raeford an opportunity to keep its record clean and hold on to valuable government contracts.

2012

North Carolina Poultry Processing Plant Convicted for Knowing Violations of Clean Water Act.
US-DOJ Office of Public Affairs Press Release. August 20, 2012. 
Excerpt:“Publicly owned wastewater treatment plants must be protected from companies that cut corners by discharging wastewater illegally,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of of EPA Region 4, which covers the southeast United States including North Carolina.  “The defendants in this case deliberately discharged turkey parts, blood and grease into the wastewater plant for over 16 months, bypassing treatment.  Today’s conviction sends the message that the American public will not tolerate companies putting profit ahead of compliance.”
See also: EPA Summary of Criminal Prosecutions

Poultry processor, House of Raeford, to pay fine for child labor violations at Teachey, North Carolina plant following US Department of Labor investigation.
Department of Labor press release. October 16, 2012.
Excerpt: “The U.S. Department of Labor has assessed a total of $12,400 in civil money penalties against poultry processor House of Raeford Farms Inc. following an investigation by the department’s Wage and Hour Division that found minors performing hazardous duties prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act’s child labor provisions. “Employers who hire young workers must comply with all federal and state regulations intended to keep our youth safe on the job,” said Richard Blaylock, director of the division’s Raleigh District Office. “This situation is particularly disappointing because the company previously was cited for the same type of violation. It is critical for employers to learn about and comply with the child labor provisions of America’s labor laws.”

Big U.S. poultry processor hit with fines over youth labor
By Ames Alexander and Franco Ordonez. The Charlotte Observer/McClathey News.October 17, 2012
Excerpt: “This is not the first time House of Raeford, one of the largest poultry producers in the country. has been caught employing underage workers. During a 2008 immigration raid of the company’s Greenville plant, federal officials found six juveniles, including a 15-year-old, working on the chicken line. One of those underage workers, Lucero Gayton, said in 2008 that she started working the night shift four months after turning 15. While most of her former classmates were playing sports and attending dances, Lucero said she was working 10-hour shifts, wielding a sharp knife, cutting muscles from thousands of freshly-killed chickens.”

2014

Man trapped, injured Tuesday night at chicken processing plant. .
By Anne-Kathryn Flanagan. The State. June 4, 2014.
A man was taken to the hospital after being trapped in a piece of machinery at the chicken processing plant for almost two hours, according to West Columbia Fire Chief Wyatt Coleman.
Injured House of Raeford Worker Recovering After Surgery
WATTPoultry. June 14, 2014
An employee at the House ofRaeford Farms chicken processing plant in West Columbia, South Carolina, wasinjured June 3 in a work-related accident. The 43-year old man was operatingfactory machinery and suffered severe injuries to his right leg, the company stated.

2017

ProPublica: Sold for Parts
The New Yorker: Exploitation and Abuse at the Chicken Plant
By Michael Grabell. Story co-published by ProPublica and The New Yorker. May 1, 2017.
Excerpt: Case Farms built its business by recruiting immigrant workers from Guatemala, who endure conditions few Americans would put up with.
[Note: While House of Raeford is mentioned on a graph in this story, this article is about a different chicken plant, Case Farms].

Pressure mounts on chicken factory to clean up or move
By Al Dozier. Post and Courier. July 16, 2017
Excerpt: The city of West Columbia is losing patience with House of Raeford Farms, a long-standing chicken processing plant on Sunset Boulevard.

Chicken Plant Doesn’t Fit with Riverfront Renaissance.
By Tim Flach. The State. August 27, 2017.
West Columbia’s riverfront has undergone a renaissance, with joggers and cyclists almost daily enjoying the riverwalk and two upscale neighborhoods opening in the last decade. But city leaders and nearby residents worry that continued development will be stymied by an increasingly unpopular neighbor – a 60-year-old chicken processing plant that produces 281 million pounds of meat a year. Residents complain mainly about frequent bad odors and chicken feathers.

Stench near W. Columbia’s popular Riverwalk may improve as city targets plant
By Tim Flach. The State. October 18, 2017. 
The City Council late Monday gave initial approval to a set of restrictions on “offensive” odors that disturb residents, with final adoption expected by mid-November. Complaints about stench from the 60-year-old plant on Sunset Boulevard are increasing as new neighborhoods and businesses develop nearby.Councilman Tem Miles called the proposal a message to the House of Raeford to end problems at the plant. “This is telling them to clean up their act, that the smells are no longer acceptable,” he said.

Why West Columbia chicken plant is getting a reprieve on tougher stench rules
By Tim Flach. The State. November 10, 2017.
West Columbia officials are giving a chicken processing plant more time to stop odors before they crack down on the stench. “We’re pushing it off for a while to see if they can come up with a solution for the problem,” Mayor Bobby Horton said of proposed limits on odors. City Council members gave initial approval Oct. 16 to a set of restrictions on “offensive” odors that disturb residents. They were set to give final approval next Tuesday but that is on hold for a few months, Horton said.

Who Would Pay $27,000 to Work in a Chicken Plant?
By Michael Grabbel. ProPublica. December 28, 2017
Chicken plants have recruited thousands of foreign workers in recent years through a little-known program to fill jobs they say Americans won’t do.

Wilde said immigration agents are questioning why white-collar Koreans would want to pay tens of thousands of dollars to cut chicken. “They are sacrificing themselves for the futures of their children,” she said. “That is no different than any other immigrants in American history.”

Based in Rose Hill, North Carolina — home of the world’s largest frying pan — House of Raeford ranks among Apple, Google, Microsoft and Amazon as one of the biggest sponsors of green cards. The chicken processor, which employs 4,300 people at seven plants, has applied for 1,900 foreign workers in the last three years, according to Labor Department data. The company also ranks among the most dangerous poultry processors in the country, according to a ProPublica analysis of safety violations, with many workers suffering crippling hand injuries.

2018

With chicken plant odor unders scrutiny, city lodges new way for public to complain.
WIS – TV. May 11, 2018.

Top broiler companies targeted in new lawsuit
WATTPoultry. July 2, 2018.
The largest broiler companies in the United States have again been targeted in a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the companies conspired to manipulate chicken prices.


Kenneth N. Young, Plaintiff, v. Columbia Farms, Inc., a division of House of Raeford Farms, Inc., Defendant.
CaseText: C/A No. 6:17-cv-01340-DCC  09-05-2018 
https://casetext.com/case/young-v-columbia-farms-inc
Plaintiff, an African-American, was employed from February 13, 2013 to October 6, 2016. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that his supervisors regularly greeted him in the mornings with phrases that included, “How ya doing, my Niggas?” Plaintiff filed a complaint with the plant manager, and, while the supervisor stopped using the phrase, tension remained. On or about September 30, 2016, Plaintiff was threatened by another employee wielding a knife, and Plaintiff defended himself to avoid being stabbed. Defendant suspended Plaintiff for three days and then immediately terminated his employment upon his return. He was 61 years old at the time of his termination.

Environmental Integrity Project: Water Pollution from Slaughterhouses
October 19, 2018
Three Quarters of U.S. Meat Processing Plants that Discharge into Waterways Violated their Permits, 2016-2018


2019

Worker Dies in Accident at House of Raeford Plant
October 30, 2019.
WATTPoultry. A contracted worker who was cleaning equipment at the House of Raeford poultry plant in Teachey, North Carolina, was involved in a fatal accident at the plant on October 25.

2020


Meat plant workers say they were fired after protesting risks.
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 7, 2020
About a dozen workers at a chicken processing plant in West Columbia were fired Wednesday after protesting for better pay and working conditions amid the coronavirus, according to some of those who said they were fired. Workers at the House of Raeford chicken plant refused to work under what they consider hazardous conditions without pay to compensate for the increased dangers of the coronavirus, the protesters told The State as they congregated on the sidewalk across Sunset Boulevard from the plant.



Union Investigating Workers’ Complaints at West Columba Chicken Plant
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 9, 2020
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union is investigating complaints and a protest by workers at a chicken processing plant in West Columbia, according to a spokesperson for the union. On Thursday, a protest by a dozen or more workers asking for better pay and working conditions broke out on the sidewalk across from the House of Raeford chicken processing plant, sometimes called Columbia Farms, on Sunset Boulevard. The UFCW’s meat packing division is investigating the origins of that protest and whether the House of Raeford violated the union’s contract or federal labor law, spokesperson Valerie Barnhart said.

Union Files Grievance Against West Columbia Chicken Plant After Workers Fired
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 21, 2020.
The union for workers at a West Columbia chicken processing plant hit the company with an official allegation that the company broke its contract when about a dozen workers were fired after asking for better pay and better working conditions. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1996 filed the grievance against House of Raeford, which operates the West Columbia poultry plant sometimes called Columbia farms, after a May 6 protest by about a dozen workers. The workers wanted increased pay and better safety measures amid the increased risk of working during the coronavirus outbreak

Lawyers: Firing protesting workers at West Columbia chicken plant likely illegal
By David Travis Bland. The State. May 27, 2020.
Excerpt: “Supervisors at a West Columbia poultry processing facility may have violated federal law when they fired about a dozen employees who raised concerns about the facility’s safety and sought better pay amid the coronavirus outbreak, according to labor lawyers. On May 6, Naesha “Shay” Shelton and June Miller gathered with about a dozen other workers at the House of Raeford chicken processing plant in West Columbia to ask supervisors about getting hazard pay and better working conditions. More than ever, the job that involves cutting raw chicken by hand while standing next to co-workers seemed more dangerous because of the virus, workers said. Hearing news reports about the coronavirus swarming meatpacking workers across the country, Shelton, Miller and their coworkers felt their request for hazard pay and improved safety conditions were reasonable.”

Workers at SC Meat Plants Infected with COVID 19. Many Cases are in the Midlands
By Sammy Fretwell. The State. July 3, 2020.
Excerpt: “According to the agency’s statistics, about 58 percent of the 125 positive cases have occurred at Amick Farms and House of Raeford plants, mostly in the Columbia and Greenville areas. A total of 72 workers at Amick and Raeford facilities have been diagnosed with COVID 19, DHEC says.”

Investigation shows property, massive pile of dead birds in Sampson County site belong to House of Raeford.
WRAL News, Rose Hill, NC. February 9, 2022.
Heather Overton, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said the dead birds and the site where the birds were temporarily dumped belonged to House of Raeford, a chicken processing company known for its bulk sales.

2022

Summary Sheet: Board of Health and Environmental Control
SC-DHEC. November 10, 2022.

2023

House of Raeford in NC taking part in USDA’s Modified Line Speed Waiver Program Participation to determine the impact of increased line speeds on worker safety. March 2023.

Latest settlement in poultry price fixing suit brings recovery to $284 million.
By Rachael Oatman. Meat+ Poultry. October 10, 2023.
A class of direct purchasers agreed to a $75 million settlement with two poultry processors involved in a consolidated antitrust lawsuit for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of US broiler chicken.House of Raeford Farms Inc. agreed to pay $27.5 million, and Koch Foods Inc. agreed to pay $47.5 million. With the settlement, the total recovery to date is over $284 million.

2024

House of Raeford reaches settlement and Price fixing case.
By Rachael Oatman. Meat + Poultry. January 5, 2024.
House of Raeford Farms agreed to pay $460,000 in a settlement of a chicken price-fixing lawsuit with Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. The attorney began his lawsuit against the house of Raeford and 18 other chicken producers in 2021. He alleged that the companies, which account for 95% of the broiler market, conspired to manipulate prices by restraining production and exchanging competitively sensitive information. 

Complaint: Milton Byrd, Plaintiff, Vs. House of Raeford Farms,, Inc. Defendant.

Violation Tracker, a database on corporate misconduct. House of Raeford entries from 2000 to the present.

_____________________