Money in the bank? States with established bottle bills discuss alterations to their systems, while some recycling advocates hope for new bills - Municipal Recycling Update

Recycling Today, April, 2003 by Deanne Toto

Bottle bills, or beverage container deposit systems, have been making news lately. Headlines such as, "Bigger Is Better When it Comes to the Bottle Bill;" "The 10-cent Debate: Proposal to Expand Bottle Bill Has Friends, Foes;" "Lingle Proposes Opposition to the Bottle Bill;" "Bring the Bottle Bill Up to Date;" and "Mass. Governor Pushes to Expand Bottle Bill" have appeared in newspapers throughout the country within the last few months, with articles discussing the pros and cons of altering the status quo.

While the details of modifications offer varying tones, they are singing a similar chorus: The bottle bills in question ignore a significant portion of today's most popular beverages, such as bottled water, iced teas, coffee-based beverages and juices. In addition to expanding the programs to include these non-carbonated beverage containers, some proposals call for the inclusion of wine and liquor bottles, an increase in the deposit amount or the allocation of unredeemed deposits to the state. States considering one or more of these measures include Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York and Oregon.

Despite the volume of the voices calling for expanded bottle bills, states such as Connecticut and Hawaii are also considering repealing their deposit systems in favor of other forms of litter prevention or recycling.

Why are so many states examining the issue right now?

"There are a number of things causing renewed interest in the bottle bill," Darryl Young of the California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, says. "Some people want to expand the system to reap more revenues for ailing state coffers. Some are not satisfied with the status quo."

KEY MODIFICATIONS. Patricia Franklin, executive director of the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), Arlington, Va., fears that money may be the primary motivation to modify the bottle bill for some legislators. "I hope that the opportunity to raise money does not overshadow the goal to increase recycling, conserve resources and reduce litter." She is referring to the states that wish to claim the unredeemed deposits.

While the changes proposed to bottle bills represent a source of revenue to some, to others they offer the chance to increase diversion rates and decrease litter. By expanding the law to include non-carbonated beverage containers, which were virtually non-existent when many of these laws went into effect, Franklin says the recovery rate could increase between 12 percent to 25 percent, depending on the region of the country. "Beer and soft drinks are consumed at a much higher per capita rate in the South and West than they are in the Northeast, the North and the Northwest. On the other hand, these non-carbonated drinks have a higher per capita rate of consumption in the Northeast and in the Pacific," she adds.

Laura Haight, senior environmental associate with New York Public Interest Research Group, Albany, and head of New York's Bigger, Better Bottle Bill Coalition (BBBBC), says that altering New York's bottle bill to include non-carbonated beverage containers would divert an additional 2.5 billion containers (90 percent being glass and plastic bottles) from the waste stream and reduce litter by 11 percent.

"Every bottle and can collected through the bottle bill is something that will not become a burden on municipal governments," Haight adds.

"Because the containers are primarily glass and plastic, it's going to remove containers from other recycling programs--municipal curbside programs and drop-off programs--that are today causing problems in terms of collection, processing and sale of recyclables," Franklin says.

Peter Allison is branch chief of commercial waste reduction for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Allison agrees that the increased diversion of glass and plastic from the municipal waste stream would reduce recycling and trash collection and processing costs for municipalities.

"Plastic is expensive to collect on a per ton basis because of its light weight-to-volume ratio, and glass is expensive to process and it generates negligible revenue in secondary markets," he says.

On the other hand, when this material moves instead to partially state-funded redemption centers, these operators will be saddled with more of the less profitable glass and plastic materials. (See the online sidebar, "A Redeemer's Viewpoint," posted at www.RecyclingToday with this feature.)

Some politicians and bottle bill advocates would also like to see the nickel deposits increased to 10 cents, adjusting for the decreased value of the nickel.

New York's BBBBC is advocating for all three changes, which Haight says will result in more than $172 million in unclaimed deposits yearly.

BEING REALISTIC. Betty McLaughlin, director of environmental affairs for the Connecticut Audubon Society, Glastonbury, see some benefit to linking the unclaimed deposits to a state's budget.

"When you start getting the unclaimed deposits for the state, you start solidifying support among legislators for bottle bills, because they get the money. It seems to me that tying the two together makes sense," she says.