Bottle Law: Boon Or Bottleneck For Recycling?

By Nancy K. Crevier

Beginning April 1, consumers of bottled water and other water beverages will pay a five-cent deposit on each container purchased. An expanded bottle bill signed into law by Governor M. Jodi Rell on March 3 as part of the Act Concerning Deficit Mitigation, now includes beverages not formerly included in the original 1978 Bottle Bill.

Until this month, only carbonated beverages were subject to the deposit law. The thought that the public would be consuming billions of gallons of bottled water and water-type drinks did not occur to legislators 30 years ago. But all bottled beverage containers now make up between 40 and 60 percent of litter, according to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI) in Glastonbury. Without a deposit, there is no compelling reason to return plastic water bottles, and the likelihood of a container landing in the trash or roadside increases greatly.

“This issue [of an expanded bottle bill] has been around for probably the past eight years,” said Senator John McKinney, 28th District, one of the sponsors of the expanded bottle bill, on March 17. “When you look at a state with a bottle deposit bill, those states have a higher recycling rate,” said the state senator.

An expanded bottle bill provides the impetus to attack litter, for one thing, he went on to say. Groups like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts will pick up bottles that are refundable. A bottle deposit is also an important tool for recycling, said Sen McKinney. “Combined with the explosion in consumer purchases of noncarbonated drinks, it’s common sense to expand to include them. The evidence is pretty indisputable in its value as a recycling program,” he said.

The early bottle bills in the United States were intended to encourage recycling and decrease litter. Until this year, deposits for unclaimed containers remained the property of the distributors in Connecticut. But Connecticut now deems the unclaimed deposits as being “abandoned” by the public, and thus the property of the state.

Distributors of bottled beverages are required to establish special bank accounts for the deposit funds. If, as the Connecticut government is banking on, consumers do not redeem the beverage containers, the funds remaining in the special account are turned over to the State of Connecticut General Fund as of April 30.

According to Consumer Recycling Institute, those states with bottle bills recycle 60 percent to 90 percent of beverage containers, compared with the national average of 34 percent. With the addition of water bottle deposits, Betty McLaughlin, executive director of CRI, estimates that the state could stand to make as much as $40 million dollars a year on unclaimed containers, based on a 70 percent return rate.

The distributor can choose to pass on to the customer the incurred by the passage of the new law. “You might see a bump in price to consumers, but this is a very competitive business,” said Ms McLaughlin. “Distributors have probably already incorporated the entire price of the [redemption] program into the product all along.”

The expanded bottle bill is a very positive thing, said Ms McLaughlin. “[The plastic] is much higher quality and a cleaner stream of material,” she said. Once the public is aware that bottled water and water beverages are part of the program, she believes those containers will be redeemed.

“This bottle bill is better than curbside collection,” she said, “because a lot of water beverages are consumed on the road. People will retain and return a bottle if it is redeemable. If there is no nickel attached, then it will probably end up in the trash and it will never be recycled,” she said.

Impact

On Recycling

Cheryl Reedy, director of Housatonic Recovery Resources Authority (HRRA), a regional waste management authority made up of 11 municipalities, including Newtown, disagreed. In a recent email to The Bee, Ms Reedy said, “HRRA has opposed the expansion of the bottle bill for the last several years for a number of reasons. The easiest way for consumers to recycle used bottles is through curbside recycling, not by deposit and return to the store.” Curbside collection is also a “greener” alternative, said Ms Reedy, based on the number of times a bottle is transported. Additionally, she said, it will cost consumers time and money. Curbside recycling takes little time, at no additional cost.

The expansion of the bottle bill will hurt local recycling efforts for other materials. Unclaimed deposits should be taken by the state and used to support and improve recycling programs statewide, said Ms Reedy. Programs such as those run by HRRA and Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority will lose the revenue generated by most of the plastic water bottles now received. The annual loss could be nearly $15,000, about half of the recycling public education/advertising costs for the region.

Not only consumers will bear the burden of returning containers to recoup that nickel, though, said Ms Reedy. HRRA also believes that the deposit/return program is a burden on retailers — a statement that rang true with Claire D’Amour-Daley, vice president of corporate communications for Big Y.

“There certainly will be an impact for retailers,” said Ms D’Amour-Daley. The Big Y anticipates a need to purchase and install additional machines to collect bottles in each location. “We will also need additional storage space to hold the returns, and we aren’t sure yet, but we may need more frequent extermination visits,” she said. Most likely, Big Y will need to reprogram the computer system, as well, she said. As of this week, the Big Y did not yet have an estimate of how much the changes would cost the company.

First and foremost, though, Ms D’Amour-Daley said, Big Y is concerned about the “sticker shock” customers will encounter when buying water and water beverages. “Water is often sold by the case. Customers will be shocked that they will have to pay an additional $1.20 more,” she said. She also would not be surprised if there was an additional jump in cost by the distributors, she said, to cover the expense of redoing packaging for bottled beverages sold in Connecticut. The clerks and store managers will bear the brunt of disgruntled customers’ complaints, she fears, as what she deemed a “hidden tax” adds just one more expense during a bad economy.

It Is All About The Money

“It is very discouraging to see the legislature respond only when they need the funds to balance their budget, not out of any serious support for recycling,” Ms Reedy said.

State representative DebraLee Hovey in a March 10 press release stated that “provisions that place deposit fees on bottled water in the recently approved deficit reduction package are short-sighted.” Deposits on juice bottles and sports drinks should also be collected, said Ms Hovey, and added that if the state were to establish “single stream” curbside recycling it would not only relieve the recycling burden for consumers, but create blue-collar jobs at sorting facilities.

Rep Hovey told The Bee March 18 that she has looked closely at the recycling issue during her four terms as a representative. “I’ve reached the position that we have to go to single stream recycling. Studies have shown that single stream recycling increases recycling by 85 percent — that’s huge,” said Rep Hovey.

If the State of Connecticut is sincere in moving toward becoming “green,” communities need to have curbside recycling in place. “We need to prioritize reducing our carbon footprint and curbside is one way to do it,” she said.

“I believe there will be proposals this year to make common sense expansion of the ‘bottle bill’ and I look forward to supporting them,” said Rep. Hovey.

Sen John McKinney said that he is not opposed to single stream recycling and does not see the expanded bottle bill and single stream recycling as being in conflict with each other. But, he said, he does not feel there is enough evidence that single stream recycling is the answer. “Many towns do not have curbside,” he pointed out. “There is promise, but it is not developed fully or implemented in Connecticut,” Sen McKinney said.

He agreed with Ms Hovey that the bottle bill should have included all beverage containers. “We have been frustrated by lobbying, and that led to an — excuse the pun — ‘watered down’ version that did not go as far as it should have,” admitted Sen McKinney.

The two legislators offered somewhat opposing views as to why an expanded bottle bill did finally pass.

“I think it passed the House and Senate this year because many legislators understood that by supporting the bill and claiming the escheats [money turned over to the state] that we would get revenue for the state,” said Sen McKinney.

Rep Hovey, on the other hand, said that while during her first two terms she had encountered a real “heels dug in” perspective about an expanded bottle bill, she has observed a mindset change the past two years. “I actually do think the bill would have passed on its own,” said Ms Hovey, but added, “It wouldn’t have passed as quickly. [Knowing that the state stood to receive millions] expedited the process because there is a benefit to the state.”

Both Rep Hovey and Sen McKinney remain hopeful that further improvement to the expanded bottle bill will come about. Sen McKinney is particularly hopeful that a version of the bottle bill introduced by Gov Rell will be well received. “This bill would increase the handling fee, and towns and cities would get a portion of that nickel from containers dropped at a landfill through curbside recycling. It is an exciting proposal to give municipalities relief and encourage towns to do curbside recycling,” said Sen McKinney.

The consequences to retailers and consumers of the expanded bottle bill will not register for many months, nor will it soon be known if the environment will benefit from the new law. No matter what, though, the new bill is probably here to stay. According to BottleBill.org, no bottle bill law has ever been repealed.