## Facts

- Harold R. Hubler and Leon G. Taylor operated a surface coal mine in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, as H & T Coal Company under a state permit.
- On December 11, 1980, federal inspectors found mining conducted within 100 feet of a public road without required state approval, violating SMCRA § 522(e)(4), 30 U.S.C. § 1272(e)(4).
- The Secretary of the Interior issued a Notice of Violation requiring H & T to either obtain state approval or reclaim the affected area by backfilling, regrading to approximate original contour, and seeding; the compliance date was extended to March 19, 1981.
- After a March 23, 1981 inspection showed noncompliance, the Secretary issued a Cessation Order on March 30, 1981, again directing permitting or reclamation work.
- Hubler and Taylor later filed bankruptcy and received discharges of dischargeable debts.
- The United States filed a civil action seeking injunctive relief compelling reclamation and seeking civil penalties assessed for the violation and cessation order.
- Defendants asserted bankruptcy discharge as a bar and denied personal liability for obligations incurred through the mining operation.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether bankruptcy discharge bars a federal action seeking injunctive relief compelling mine-site reclamation under SMCRA.
2. Whether SMCRA reclamation obligations are dischargeable “debts” or nondischargeable regulatory duties.
3. Whether individual partners are personally liable for SMCRA violations and reclamation responsibilities incurred through the partnership’s mining operations.
4. Whether SMCRA civil penalties tied to the enforcement action may be pursued notwithstanding discharge.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the United States on enforcement of reclamation obligations.
- The court held that the reclamation duties were not discharged because the suit sought compliance with regulatory requirements, not collection of a money judgment.
- The court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion based on discharge and lack of personal liability.
- The court allowed enforcement of SMCRA civil penalties to the extent they functioned within the regulatory and deterrent scheme rather than as compensatory debt collection.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental enforcement actions seeking compliance with health, safety, and environmental laws are treated as exercises of police and regulatory power, not as ordinary debt-collection barred by bankruptcy discharge.
- Obligations to perform affirmative remediation or reclamation (e.g., backfilling, regrading, reseeding) are characterized as ongoing regulatory duties when aimed at abating continuing violations, even if compliance requires spending money.
- A discharge does not relieve a debtor from compliance with valid regulatory injunctions that compel lawful conduct rather than payment of damages.
- Civil penalties imposed to deter and enforce regulatory compliance may remain enforceable where they serve regulatory objectives and are not merely compensatory claims.
- Under partnership principles, partners may be personally responsible for partnership obligations and statutory violations arising from the partnership’s business, including reclamation duties ordered for the mining operation.

## Conclusion

The court held that bankruptcy discharge did not prevent the United States from enforcing SMCRA by compelling reclamation of an unreclaimed mine site, and it permitted pursuit of related civil penalties within the regulatory enforcement framework; the individual partners remained personally liable for the partnership’s reclamation obligations and violations.


United States v. Hubler, 117 B.R. 160 (W.D. Pa. 1990)