Did Columbia destroy an archeological structure?

Standard

Court of Appeals holds the City is not responsible

On November 10, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment order in favor of the City of Columbia concerning the alleged destruction of an archeological and historical bridge abutment during a sewer rehabilitation project*.

The Brinkmans, Colemans, Fosters and Collins (property owners) own real estate on Castle Road on the banks of the Broad River in Richland County. The City of Columbia owns and operates sewer lines that run beneath portions of the property and has a permanent, 15-foot easement across the property for the purpose of maintaining the sewer lines. In 2014, the City began a sewer rehabilitation project which required access to the sewer lines.

According to the property owners, two bridge abutments stood on their property located outside the easement. The owners claim these abutments, which were made of carved rock, were built in the 1700s and were the “oldest existing structures in the Midlands.”

One of the owners testified that he shouted to the City’s contractors and said there was a valued monument on the property. Unfortunately, while the City and the contractors were clearing the land, they destroyed the stones that allegedly comprised the bridge abutments. The City acquiesced to the owner’s request that all work cease, and the property owners brought the subject lawsuit alleging various causes of action, including the destruction of archaeological resources in violation of §16-11-780 of the South Carolina Code.

This statute states that it is unlawful for a person to willfully, knowingly, or maliciously enter upon the lands of another and disturb or excavate a prehistoric or historic site for the purpose of discovering, uncovering, moving, removing or attempting to remove an archaeological resource.

The property owner’s expert testified that he believed the structures were historic abutments from the 1700s or early 1800s and likely to be the “Compty bridge abutment.” He explained that additional excavation and review of other properties across the river would have been the appropriate “next step”.

The property owners submitted an application in 2008 to the National Register of Historic Places, but the Department responded that a great deal more research and archeological investigation was needed before a determination of eligibility could be made.

The record contains a screenshot from the website “ArchSite. The property owner’s expert testified that ArchSite is a multi-agency website that allows access to the archaeological resources database. He explained that when ArchSite receives information about historic sites, it verifies the information and posts it to the website. The image in the record shows a rendering of part of the Broad River and Castle Road, and it includes the notation “Historic Areas: Broad River Ferry and Bridge Site.”

The trial court found no governing preservation or conservation authority had recognized the structures as either archaeological resources or historical structures. In granting the City’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that the City was not liable under the statute.

The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that no evidence exists that the City cleared the land “for the purpose of” discovering, uncovering, moving, removing or attempting to remove an archaeological resource. Clearly, the City was attempting to clear the easement area to access the sewer lines. In addition, the owners provided no evidence that the City had any knowledge of the historic nature of the site.

The owner who shouted at the contractors could not testify that the contractors heard him and did not know whether this incident took place before or after the destruction of the stones. In addition, the Court held that the owners failed to show the City was obligated to consult ArchSite. The Court also questioned whether the entry on ArchSite contained sufficient information to conclude the property is historic because the entry indicates the site is “not eligible or requires evaluation.”

Finally, the Court held that regardless of whether any preservation or conservation authorities designed the structures as archaeological resources, the property owners failed to demonstrate the City had either actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of such resources.

*Brinkman v. Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc., South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion No. 5870, November 10, 2021

Hobcaw Barony owner claims title to North Inlet

Standard

hobcaw-church

Image from south-carolina-plantations.com

I grew up in Georgetown, SC, and enjoyed visiting the beach with my family on Pawleys Island. Between the City of Georgetown and the beautiful “arrogantly shabby” Pawleys beach lies Hobcaw Barony, a gorgeous stretch of land that was developed as a winter hunting resort by Bernard Baruch.

Bernard Baruch is a name South Carolinians should cherish. Baruch was born in Camden in 1870 and became a Wall Street financier, stock investor, philanthropist, statesman and political consultant. After his success in business, he devoted time advising war-time Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. He was a personal friend of Winston Churchill.

Between 1905 and 1907, Baruch purchased a total of 69,690 acres of the former 18th century Hobcaw Barony, consolidating 69 plantations located on the peninsula known as Waccamaw Neck between the Winyah Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Famous visitors included presidents, royalty and world leaders.

For an interesting and entertaining history of the plantation properties developed by wealthy northerners in Georgetown County for hunting purposes, I highly recommend Columbian David Hodges’ book Sunset Lodge in Georgetown: The Story of a Madam.  Hodges is a frequent visitor to Georgetown who conducted extensive interviews and research about Hazel Weisse, who moved to Georgetown in 1936, when the International Paper Company plant was being built, and established a brothel to entertain the builders. Despite being illegal, the business remained open for thirty-three years until Weisse retired in 1969.  Do yourself a favor, South Carolinians. Read this book.

But I digress.

Hobcaw Barony is a treasure. Baruch’s daughter, Belle, established a foundation to use the property as an educational and research preserve. The property includes 37 historic buildings representing the 18th and 19th century rice growing industry and the 20th century winter hunting resort. Tours of the property are open to the public. My brother, Alec Tuten, is one of the tour guides who will happily talk your ear off given half a chance.

The picturesque property reminds me of George Washington’s home at Mount Vernon but, sadly, little or no funding was established to maintain the buildings, so they are not preserved to the standards of Mount Vernon. The grounds, on the other hand, are beautifully maintained. For example, both Carolina and Clemson have established coastal and marine sciences programs at Hobcaw. Wetlands, forests and coastal ecosystems are studied. The entire property was named to the National Register of Historic Places in 1994. I recommend a visit to this little-known local gem!

An interesting lawsuit is now brewing in Georgetown County involving the property of Hobcaw Barony and adjacent North Inlet. The Baruch Foundation is claiming title to 8,000 acres of marsh at North Inlet, a vast marshland that has always been used by the public for recreational purposes. The lawsuit claims title to the property by virtue of a Kings Grant.

stay tuned

Local gossip indicates the Foundation simply intends to clean up title issues and does not intent to preclude the public from enjoying the property. But the complaint reads like a normal quiet title action of marshland property and the locals are nervous. An easement has been suggested to resolve the conflict, but this suggestion has been rebuffed by the Foundation.

Stay tuned to learn more about what will happen to this slice of God’s country.