by Don Moniak
June 22, 2026.
In an area that annually averages nearly four feet of rain, with some years exceeding five feet, stormwater management is a constant challenge. Our predominantly sandy soils also create greater risks of sedimentation damage to down-gradient property owners and to our public waterways.
Aiken County has an agreement in place with the South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (DES, formerly DHEC) to manage stormwater runoff; and has an Ordinance dealing strictly with stormwater. In short, the County regulates stormwater management while DES oversees the County.
In regard to its stormwater management practices, Aiken County was sued twice in 2025 for allegedly failing to protect property owners.
The first suit against the County was filed in March 2025, and involves an equestrian development known as Park Place Polo. The other lawsuit, filed in August 2025, involves a new golfing establishment, the 21 Golf Club.
In both suits, the Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ actions have negatively impacted their properties and created stormwater runoff and sedimentation events that rise to the level of a trespass and loss of property values. Aiken County’s actions during the permitting process, or lack thereof, are alleged to have facilitated the damages.
The Cedar Creek Road/Park Place Polo Lawsuit
The Swartz and Gamm vs Aiken County, Park Place Polo, and the South Carolina Department of Transportation lawsuit involves chronic flooding on Cedar Creek Road, and the resultant sedimentation onto private property; including wetlands. Cedar Creek Road is a County-owned dirt road situated off Coleman Bridge Road; north of Highway 302. (Figure 1)
The Cedar Creek Road stormwater problems have been exposed by WRDW News of Augusta, which has featured stories such as Like Clockwork: Cedar Creek Road Washes Out Again, Why Flooding Still Plagues Aiken County Residents on Rural Road, and Heavy Flooding Leaves Local Family Looking for Answers.
The complaint alleges that since 2022 storm water runoff (Figure 2) from Park Place Polo’s property developments have damaged the private property of two long-time residents—as well as causing the road itself to chronically washout. Sediments have smothered floodplains and flowed into a private pond along Cedar Creek.
The County permitted the large equestrian development without requiring any stormwater retention structures that would slow the streams of water during major rain events and thus protect downhill/downstream parties—including Cedar Creek and its associated wetlands, which are waters of the state.
As predictable, to date all defendants deny any wrongdoing.
However, SC DOT’s answer included the following statement that impugned the County and Park Place Polo:
“The Defendant SCDOT is informed and believes the inundation of storm water during rain events will continue without Aiken County modifying its permit for development or enforcing the permit Aiken County issued, and the Defendant SCDOT joins in the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief to abate the continued inundation of storm water during rain events from which there is no adequate remedy at law for the Plaintiffs or the Defendant, SCDOT.”
SC DOT also filed a Motion for Joinder (to also be named as a Plaintiff) that stated drainage “had been fully adequate up until the development in the area above the Plaintiffs’ property whereupon the Plaintiffs’ property and the state highway, Coleman Bridge Road, have become inundated by storm water during rain events.” (The Motion was denied).
As for Aiken County’s role, in early 2023 County officials gave strong hints as to its complicity in this problem—which has cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, if not more than a hundred thousand, to address; and for which there is no foreseeable resolution of the problem.
The Aiken County Council’s February 21, 2023 public meeting featured a fifteen-minute discussion on the matter after Cedar Creek Road resident Duane Gamm brought the issue to Council’s attention.
The dialogue that evening, which occurred from the four minute to twenty-one minute mark in this audio, included the following statements:
Duane Gamm: “We have had at least seven events where the road is being washed out. Every time it washes out they run the runoff onto my property. We have one inch of rain and the county comes out and spends $5,000 to fix the road.”
“There is 80 acres that they have developed where the runoff comes down . Cedar Creek Road is actually a ridge. 80 acres up there does not have a cross drainage.“ (Figure 2)
“The wetlands are on my property and the county has cut a drain that goes right into it.”
Councilman Kelly Mobley: “Are DHEC and the Corps aware of the wetlands issue we have?….Is there a solution that does not involve paving? If this happened because of a development that we allowed to happen, assuming this is a new polo field area….Whose responsibility is this? What is the challenge?”
Duane Gamm: “They have to keep the runoff at or below the levels before they developed it.”
Councilman Mobley: “DId the developer dump water from the new polo field onto Cedar Creek ? Is there stormwater being dumped on that road that was not being dumped there before?”
Councilman Mike Kellems: “When we built a fire department station on an acre and a half, we had to build a retention pond. Can staff answer why this wasn’t required here?”
Councilman Mobley: “Mr. Killian, what kind of recourse do we have after the fact if in fact we find we did not adequately prepare? Is there remedial action we can take with the polo folks.”
Assistant County Administrator Brian Sanders: “We tried to get the polo people to do something more.”
Since this exchange, the road has continued to wash out after every major rainfall event; generally an inch or more within one day. Everytime it washes out, the County sends a grader to repair the damage and make the road passable again.
The solution proposed by the County is paving. But Cedar Creek Road is not on the list of paving projects to be funded by Capital Project Sales Tax dollars; nor is it on the list of County roads to be paved with state funding.
Meanwhile, the lawsuit slogs through the courts. According to a recent Consent Order, there will be no trial until at least after November 1, 2026, to allow for both more discovery time and an opportunity to “convene a meaningful mediation conference.
The 21 Golf Lawsuit
21 Golf is a new golf club being constructed on a 474-acre parcel northwest of Jackson, near Drag Strip Road.
According to the lawsuit, water is being discharged from a newly constructed pond onto the Plaintiff’s property.
The suit alleges that Aiken County is responsible for permitting and enforcing the stormwater management regulations applicable to 21 Golf Club, but has “failed to adequately investigate complaints about the improper discharge and failed to enforce stormwater regulations to protect the Plaintiff’s property.”
In its response, the County denied all culpability.
In its answer, 21 Golf denied the allegations but also named a Third Party, its grading contractor Morton Civil Services, writing that the company “expressly and/or implied warranted to 21 Golf that all work performed by them would be performed in a careful, diligent, and workmanlike manner and that any materials and/or services designed, supplied, or sold by them for use on the project would be merchantable and fit for their intended or specific purpose. To the extent the Plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the Third-Party Defendant breached their implied and/or express warranties of merchantability, workmanlike service, and/or fitness for a particular or intended purpose in the construction of the project.”
In other words, while admitting no liability, 21 Golf has taken the preemptive action to pass legal costs onto its contractor in the case of an award to Plaintiffs.
The case is currently in the discovery phase.
