Published: February 19, 2009 09:56 pm      

Pros, cons of bottle bill presented to panel

CHARLESTON — The script hasn’t changed, nor have the players.

Which leaves one big question: Is this year’s version of the bottle bill in West Virginia destined for the same fate as the preceding six losing proposals?

In Thursday’s presentation before a joint meeting of two House committees, a leading proponent of imposing a redeemable deposit on all beverage containers outlined the good that can come from it.

Johh Ferrari, president of NexCycle’s operations in California, touted bottle laws as effective in reducing roadside litter, creating jobs and inspiring recycling, as well as deterring consumers from dumping other forms of trash on highways.

“Jobs — and this is the important one,” Ferrari said.

With a slide presentation, Ferrari said beverage container laws led to 4,684 new jobs in Michigan, 3,800 in New York, 1,806 in Maine and between 250 and 350 in Vermont.

Eleven states have enacted such laws, and figures showed 69 to 74 percent of container litter had been reduced while overall discarded refuse was cut back 34 to 64 percent.

If West Virginia adopts such legislation, he promised, his firm will create a market here for recycled glass.

But afterward, Greg Sayre, head of the Independent Recyclers Association in Char-leston, maintained the math is fatally flawed in West Virginia’s proposal.

“If 60 percent of the people redeem their deposits, maybe you make it,” he said.

Redemption centers get 3 cents per container, the recycler gets a share and the consumer is due 10 cents for the deposit paid, he said.

“Our feeling is the bill is about $50 million short on funds,” Sayre said.

“So where does that money come from? It’s going to have to come from general revenue. There’s not enough money. If you look at the Michigan bottle bill or the California bottle bill, the deposits don’t cover all the costs.”

If only 60 percent of consumers cash in the used containers, the program might survive, he said. Above that threshold, he maintained, the program is headed for red ink and taxpayers at large will be forced to bail it out.

Another complaint is fraud, and Ferrari acknowledged some try to exploit the program with bottles bought in from other states, but this problem only figures into 2 to 3 percent.

“It has proven very successful,” Ferrari said of the California program.

That law imposes 5 cents per containers of less than 24 ounces and 10 cents for larger drinks.

Since its inception, he said, the California program has fed an underground economy to supplement low-income residents. For some folks, that is the sole source of income.

“You do not see a container on the side of the road in California,” he said.

Bottle laws spawn jobs at redemption centers for truck drivers and the processing of material, he said, while reducing the drain on energy to create new containers.

A coalition of opponents passed out a sheet to lawmakers and media personnel attacking the legislation, offered in the House by Delegate Barbara Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, and Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha.

The paper maintained containers make up only 7.4 percent of all litter, the state cannot meet the refunds and that such a law would drive consumers and their money out of state.

More than 5 percent of total sales would be forfeited in border counties, the coalition maintained.

Members of the coalition included the West Virginia Retailers Association, Oil Marketers and Grocers Association, Teamsters Local Union No. 175, Anheuser-Busch and the West Virginia Beverage Association.

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com