Markell Veto Cracks Up Bottle Bill
Jul 20th, 2009 by Timothy Pancoast
If you didn’t know, in Delaware we pay an extra 5 cents for every bottle of soda we buy. This pays for the 5 cent refund given to people who turn in their bottles to the grocery store for recycling. It is estimated that less than 14% of bottles are returned through this program. In the wee hours of the morning on June 30/July 1 while the general assembly was passing the state budget they also passed a bill to repeal the 5 cent tax and end the bottle collection program. The program was little used. Several of those who used the program crossed state lines to turn in bottles at 5 cents a pop. Bottles which they did not have to pay the extra 5 cent tax on.
We now have recycling bins in all parts of Delaware and curbside recycling has expanded to much of the state. So the program is more costly and redundant than ever before, yet Governor Markell vetoed the bill that would have repealed it. This bill passed the House 35 for, 2 against, and 4 either absent or not voting. Unfortunately the passage of this bill was likely used to buy the votes of our more conservative Representatives, on other measures such as the budget.
Apparently to our Governor the State’s reputation as a “green” leader is more important than its budget or the wallets of its citizens. He also claims a rate of about a third of all bottles being returned. This is far different than the statistic cited before the General Assembly. Personal experience tells me that the rate is probably far less than a third or even 14%. My family has only returned bottles once in my lifetime. The rest of the time we just recycle them. I don’t know of anyone else who has ever done it. The Governor is using missleading statistics, if not an outright lie to push this part of his “green” agenda.
http://www.sussexcountian.com/news/business/x931240414/Markell-vetoes-bottle-bill
“House Bill 201 repeals Delaware’s “Bottle Bill,” which can be found in Subchapter III, Chapter 60, Title 7 of the Delaware Code. I have considered this legislation in detail and I have met and discussed the issues related to this legislation with retailers, distributors, environmentalists, legislators, members of my cabinet and my staff. Pursuant to Article III, Section 18 of the Delaware Constitution and only after careful consideration, I am returning House Bill 201 to the Delaware House of Representatives without my signature.
By way of background, Delaware’s Bottle Bill was enacted in 1982 and places a five-cent refund value on beverage bottles returned. The purpose was to reduce littering by encouraging the return, reuse and recycling of beverage bottles, and to reduce utilization of our landfills. It can be fairly said that Delaware’s Bottle Bill has contributed to a reduction in litter alongside our roadways and parks, as well as reduced landfill usage. Indeed, some estimate that one-third of glass bottles are returned to retailers for recycling. House Bill 201 eliminates this initiative in its entirety, without any proposed alternative
While the Bottle Bill does help reduce litter and promote recycling, the problems with this 29 year old initiative are notable. The use of plastic bottles in lieu of glass has grown significantly, but very few plastic bottles are returned. Cans are no longer included within the law’s scope and the program is otherwise cumbersome and costly to administer for retailers. There is also very little accountability in this program, so its effectiveness is difficult to measure. If one assumes a 30% return rate for glass bottles, this equates to 70% of the deposits being collected not being returned to consumers. In the end, consumers are paying for a recycling initiative that is not very effective.
Importantly, there is nothing in House Bill 201 that prohibits distributors from continuing to charge five additional cents, or increasing their prices to offset any loss of bottle deposits they have become accustomed to keeping. Indeed, the legislation does not even provide a mechanism for consumers to recover their deposits on bottles purchased prior to the effective date of the repeal. While paying for an ineffective recycling initiative is bad, continuing to pay, after the program is abolished, is even worse.
There is widespread recognition that Delaware’s recycling rate is too low and there have been various recycling initiatives proposed over the years. While proponents of House Bill 201, under the leadership of Representative John J. Viola, deserve significant credit for calling attention to the inadequacies of our current Bottle Bill, I believe we need to review this issue in a larger context that takes into consideration the environment, the industry and Delaware taxpayers. Although I am sympathetic to those who argue that the current Bottle Bill system is broken, I am committed to doing what I can to ensure that we replace it with something better.
To that end, I have directed Secretary Collin O’Mara of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Alan Levin, the Director of the Delaware Economic Development Office, to work with Representative Viola, other members of the General Assembly, beverage distributors and retailers, and the environmental community to comprehensively examine how beverage bottles are distributed, sold, returned and recycled. My hope is that we can propose a workable solution when the General Assembly returns in January, 2010.
This hope is bolstered by my recent meetings with beverage distributors, retailers and environmentalists, as I have heard good faith commitments to improve our current recycling efforts, based on best practices around the country and around the world. We should capitalize on this shared commitment to develop alternatives to the current Bottle Bill that will further promote waste diversion and recycling efforts in Delaware, while being fair to Delaware taxpayers.
In closing, Delaware is quickly earning a reputation as a leader in environmental issues like alternative energy and climate prosperity, in part, because we recognize the connection between the health of our economy and the health of our environment. This bill as written, without additional consumer protections or a plan to improve our recycling rate, does not move us forward. I am hopeful that by working cooperatively with many interested participants, we can, in fact, move forward.
For these reasons, I must veto House Bill 201 and return it to the House of Representatives without my signature.”
This foolish pandering is sickening. He is actually hurting recycling by continuing to drive retailers to plastic.
[...] Here is the original post: Markell Veto Cracks Up Bottle Bill [...]
I have dozens…no, make that hundreds…of beer bottles in my garage because most DE liquor stores will only redeem either 6-packs or full cases of matching bottles (in their original carriers) at one time, ostensibly because that’s the only way the distributors will take them back. Thing is, I don’t drink the same beer all the time, so I wind up with 2 sixers of Dogfish Head, 3 of Red Hook IPA, etc. etc. Oh, and God forbid you should break a bottle, ’cause they won’t take the other 5! What is this, Go Fish? Do they wind up tossing the odd 6 packs in the dumpster? I think so, since I can’t imagine they stockpile them around back.
Drop the bottle tax or make the distributors take back anything that says 5 cents on the label, whether it’s their product or not. Please, I need more garage space!
who gets all those unclaimed nickles?
I think the distributors get the nickel.
The 5 cent tax is supposed to cover the cost of the program, so yes, the distributors do get some of those nickles.
As I understand it, it eventually goes into unclaimed property. That is why ending this tax would have been a financial boon for the state. The state would have collected millions. Where is that money coming from now?
[...] Delaware Politics offers reaction. [...]