7th time ‘lucky’ for bottle bill?

By Mannix Porterfield

If seven is a lucky number, proponents of the so-called “bottle bill” hope the seventh voyage finally brings it into harbor.

Six times the bill has met the same fate — drowned in a sea of forgotten legislation in the final, hectic days of the West Virginia Legislature.

Actually, “bottle bill” is a misnomer, since the idea generated by the West Virginia Citizen Action Group would cover all beverage containers, including aluminum cans, in a mission to help rid roadsides of litter tossed out by motorists.

WVCAG wants in the 2009 session to impose a 10-cent, totally refundable deposit on all beverage containers as an incentive for consumers to turn them in to recycling centers rather than pitch them out along West Virginia highways, adding to the unsightly litter that spoils the environment.

On the other side of the issue, the West Virginia Beverage Association views it as “a massive tax,” one that would put businesses along the border at a clear disadvantage in trying to compete with nearby firms in adjoining states without a bottle bill.

“It’s definitely been a long-term project,” acknowledged Linda Frame, program director for WVCAG.

“But that’s what other states have encountered as well that eventually have gone on to getting a bill passed. Unfortunately, it’s not unusual for these efforts to take this long.”

Critics say fraud has crept into the picture with some consumers bringing in containers for the refund, even though they weren’t purchased in the state which imposed the deposit.

“Unfortunately, there’s always going to be fraud,” Frame said.

Yet in Michigan, with a 10-cent deposit similar to the one proposed in West Virginia, steps have been taken to increase penalties and clearly identify containers with a special imprint to show exactly where the beverage was purchased — and, more importantly, where the deposit was paid.

“Another thing they’re doing in other states, if you’re coming in with a whole truckload of cans, you have to show your driver’s license and show you’re a resident of that state,” Frame said.

“And that’s really scaring people away who may be wanting to exploit the system.”

Larry Swann, a lobbyist for the beverage association, opposes the deposit law on grounds that it translates into a tax that would hurt not only soft drink bottlers but border businesses.

Moreover, Swann says research shows the “bottle bill” has led to a mere 81/2 percent drop in the amount of roadside litter and 5 percent in the solid waste stream.

“If they’re (WVCAG) really trying to help the environment, targeting less than 5 percent of the solid waste stream makes no sense,” he said.

“Studies have shown that beverage containers are not the problem. The most recent study in Kentucky showed that less than 9 percent of roadside litter is beverage containers. The CAG representatives would introduce a bottle bill which would be a massive tax increase, and a massive infrastructure to implement all of this and maintain it. And you’re addressing 5 percent of the solid waste stream and only 81/2 percent of the roadside litter. That really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

Frame heartily disagrees about the effectiveness of bottle bills in ridding the environment of ugliness.

Research proves 80 percent of the beverage container litter is reduced when such laws go on the books, she said, and overall litter is diminished between 40 and 60 percent.

“I think it’s a combined situation that you may not be so likely to throw your 10 cents out the window,” she said when asked if the deposit is a motivator.

“If you decide to do it, there’s an incentive for someone else to come pick it up. Right now, people will go around and pick up aluminum cans because there’s a value to the aluminum, but will leave the glass and plastic behind. So if there’s a value on all those containers, people picking up the litter would pick up those other containers as well. That’s where the litter reduction comes in. You can still throw it out your window, but it’s worth 10 cents to somebody.”

Soft drink bottlers in the 1950s and 1960s assessed a 3-cent deposit back when glass was the only game in town, but Swann says it is unfair to draw a comparison to then and now.

“Those were voluntary deposits by companies that were localized,” he said.

“Those bottles were extraordinarily difficult to wash and clean and get back into the marketplace. A lot of the cost of the containers is in the transportation. That’s why they went to less weight. Not just soft drinks, but all kinds of containers.”

Economically, Swann said, a bottle bill in West Virginia would be disastrous to firms that operate along the border, pointing to a study in Kentucky showing it would rob state firms of 5 percent of their income.

“That’s not 5 percent of your container business — that’s 5 percent of your total retail business,” he said.

“This would impact West Virginia more because we have more of our business on the borders than a lot of states.”

On top of that, he said, bottlers would suffer in overall sales across the state.

“It’s an additional cost of doing business,” he said. “It impacts the ability to do business. That’s why so many groups, not just beverage people, have formed a loose-knit coalition, including retail stores.”

Among those in the coalition is the Teamsters union, mindful how a bottle bill would negatively impact their jobs, Swann said.

Again, Frame has a rebuttal. A woman in Tennessee embarked on a personal survey and discovered soft drinks were cheaper in states with bottle bills, she said.

“I think there’s a fear factor of changing the status quo,” she said. “Other states have had their bills for decades.”

Private recyclers likewise oppose the legislation, largely out of concern it would crimp their business, but Frame disputes this opposition.

“The way our bill is written, it would encourage private businesses to become redemption centers,” the WVCAG leader said.

One recycling leader has indicated the bill would put such people out of business.

“We would see the opposite,” Frame said. “They would collect a handling fee for picking up these containers from people. I don’t get why his folks wouldn’t stand to make more money. If you’re already going curbside and picking up things for people, you could pick up their containers. You could set up a redemption center. There is going to be a value on those containers that right now are just trash.”

Eleven states now have “bottle laws” on the books, and a handful of other states are contemplating following suit.

“It’s a tough group to lobby against,” Frame said of the opposition.

“We’ve really tried to make the bill more palatable to industry that opposes it, but it’s tough. We think it would be great for West Virginia. We have tourism here. People don’t want to come here and see plastic bottles floating down the New River Gorge. They want to see our beautiful mountains.”

A better solution to the matter would be a national bottle bill, such as the one that is introduced perennially, she said.

“Maybe these industries that oppose the localized effort would support a national bill.”

— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com

Text Only