## Facts

- Barnes & Tucker Co. owned and formerly operated Lancashire Mine No. 15, a deep bituminous coal mine in Cambria and Indiana Counties, Pennsylvania.
- After the mine was closed and abandoned, the mine workings flooded and discharged untreated acid mine water into Commonwealth waters, causing serious pollution.
- In earlier litigation, the condition at Mine No. 15 was adjudicated a public nuisance under both statutory and common-law theories, and the Commonwealth was entitled to abatement under its police power.
- Because the earlier record was insufficient to determine the proper remedy, the case was remanded to the Commonwealth Court to take additional evidence and craft an appropriate decree.
- On remand, the Commonwealth Court ordered Barnes & Tucker to operate and maintain the Duman Dam pumping and treatment facility to prevent continued discharge from Mine No. 15 and to bear the costs of operation.
- Some water entering Mine No. 15 originated as “fugitive” water from adjacent mines operated by others, but the discharge into surface waters occurred through Mine No. 15.

## Issues

1. Whether ordering Barnes & Tucker to operate and maintain the Duman Dam pumping and treatment facility was reasonably necessary to abate the established public nuisance.
2. Whether the decree was unconstitutional because it was an uncompensated taking or was “unduly oppressive” due to its economic burden.
3. Whether third-party contributions of water to Mine No. 15 limited Barnes & Tucker’s responsibility for abating the discharge from its mine.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decree.
- The Court held the ordered pumping and treatment was a reasonable and necessary means of abating the public nuisance.
- The Court rejected the taking and “unduly oppressive” arguments, concluding the decree was a valid exercise of the police power to dispel a public danger.
- The Court held it was immaterial that some contributing water originated in other mines because Mine No. 15 was the point of discharge into public waters.
- The Court found Barnes & Tucker did not carry its burden to show feasible, less burdensome alternatives or that the remedy was unnecessary.

## Legal Principles

- Once a condition is adjudicated a public nuisance, the Commonwealth may impose affirmative obligations on the property owner that are reasonably necessary to abate the nuisance.
- Police-power measures reasonably necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare by preventing or abating harm generally do not constitute a compensable taking, even when compliance is costly.
- Responsibility for abatement may be imposed on the owner of the property that serves as the locus of discharge into public waters, notwithstanding that some contributing flows originate offsite.
- A defendant challenging a court-ordered nuisance remedy bears the burden to show the remedy is unnecessary, unreasonable, or unduly oppressive in light of the public danger.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a decree requiring the owner of an abandoned mine to pump and treat acid mine drainage at its own expense because the ongoing discharge constituted a public nuisance and the ordered remedy was reasonably necessary to abate the harm without effecting an unconstitutional taking.


Commonwealth v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 371 A.2d 461 (Pa. 1977)