THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SOUTHEASTERN CT

What’s up with Connecticut’s Bottle Bill?

By Barbara Brockhurst

Special to the Times

          Connecticut’s Bottle Bill – passed in 1978 when this legislation conferred on our state a “green” aura – again is a hot topic some 30 years later. The original law mandated refundable nickel deposits on soda, beer and sparkling water to encourage recycling of these containers. As of April 1, however, bottled drinking water will be included and further modifications look possible during this legislative session, as a current bill is pending that seeks, among other factors, to include bottles containing teas and sports drinks.

          So what just happened? For years groups hoping to reduce litter and better protect our environment have sought to expand the bill to cover bottled water. Among these groups are the League of Women Voters of Southeastern Connecticut and the state league. Every year a new bill was introduced, and every year it was defeated.

          Late last year the green nature of the Bottle Bill became more about cash than about the environment and changes have come with breathtaking speed. Under the new legislation, the Bottle Bill will work something like this: Companies that distribute beverages must keep records of their income from the nickel per bottle deposits. Receipts that are not used to pay for the actual recycling must then be held in a special account and periodically turned over to the state. This money represents deposits collected from the sales of beverage containers that are not returned by consumers. Previously, distributors were allowed to keep this money, for which they didn’t have to account.

          The state now projects that this money represents a significant source of income. However, distributors have not acknowledged any regret for its loss. In fact, distributors and retail sellers opposed the original bill and have lobbied hard against any expansion. Retailers are required to accept returned containers from all brands that they sell, although the distributors are given overall responsibility. Both groups are represented by well-financed trade organizations capable of applying political pressure by means of unseemly techniques such as through campaign contributions. Legislators also have heard from small grocers for whom the requirement of accepting and storing empties represents a real hardship.

          Distributors and retailers generally have not emphasized the ways in which they are hurt by the bill, but rather on perceived harm to the consumer. They point out the potential for higher prices and the inconvenience of returning the empties. The latter argument is somewhat weak when the consumer has to sort out recyclables anyway prior to collection. Under these circumstances, recycling is something of a bother no matter how it is done. Recently, though, Hartford began a pilot program called “single stream” recycling, where all recyclable material is collected in single drums. According to the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA), which runs it, this program already has been shown to be cost effective and expects over the coming years to convert its other customers, which include many towns in southeastern Connecticut.

          Now, single-stream recycling has been embraced by distributors and retailers as an alternative to the Bottle Bill that would have the same benefits and be more consumer-friendly. Members of the local League of Women Voters recently visited Hartford to discuss extension of the Bottle Bill, among other issues, with our regional legislators. All representatives who responded already had gotten the message that single-stream recycling was indeed a superior alternative so that no further discussion of the Bottle Bill was warranted. After all, the CRRA is a state-sponsored, quasi-independent business such that the governor’s office has some oversight in its operation. 

          Advocates of bottle bills do not concede that any recycling program serves as an adequate substitute, however. They point to evidence that the combination of container deposits with other recycling methods in states with bottle bills significantly increases the fraction of recyclable materials that are, in fact, recycled. In addition, only deposit systems address the important problem of littering, which was arguably the reason they were enacted in the first place. A third key point is that it is only fair that beverage distributors are made to assume some responsibility for cleaning up the mess that their products help to create.

          For the first time, the state of Connecticut now stands to benefit monetarily from expansion of the Bottle Bill. Although there would appear to be some conflict with the CRRA promoting what is seen as a substitute, it will be interesting to see whether our recently strengthened bill can be further extended during this legislative session.

Barbara Brockhurst is co-president of the League of Women Voters of Southeastern Connecticut. The League, open to men and women, is a non-partisan group that encourages informed and active participation in government.