October 8, 2009
Battle to expand bottle law heats up
After long struggle, backers optimistic
Every legislative session for the past 15 years, state lawmakers have proposed bills to expand the bottle law, the 5-cent deposit fee for carbonated soda, beer, and malt beverages. But the bills have died each time before ever getting a committee vote.
This year may be different.
Advocates say the Patrick administration’s increasingly vocal support, pressure from municipalities, and plummeting state revenues make it more likely that the 28-year-old law will finally win approval to include bottled water, juices, and sports drinks, which account for about a third of beverages sold in Massachusetts.
The administration estimates the state would raise about $58 million by allowing redemption of an additional 1.5 billion containers a year, or about $20 million more than the state earns from the current law, and that municipalities would save as much as $7 million in disposal costs.
Advocates also cite the momentum of the recent expansion of bottles laws in New York and Connecticut.
More importantly, they say, the politics are increasingly favorable. A new cochairman of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, which has jurisdiction over the bill, once cosponsored similar legislation to expand the bottle law. Also, a majority of committee members say they support the legislation.
After a packed hearing on the bill yesterday at the State House, Senator Michael W. Morrissey, a Quincy Democrat who is cochairman of the committee and has opposed expanding the bottle law, added to their optimism when he promised there will be a vote this session.
“There will be a lot of discussion,’’ he said. “But the bill will get a vote.’’
Morrissey’s new cochairman, Representative Barry R. Finegold, has replaced Representative Brian S. Dempsey, a Haverhill Democrat, who quashed past bills.
“The previous chair was a definite no; I’m not a definite no,’’ said Finegold, an Andover Democrat, who acknowledged his previous support of expanding the law. “I am open, and I’m listening to all sides.’’
Proponents of expanding the bottle law, which passed in 1981 when lawmakers overrode a veto by Governor Edward J. King, argue that it is needed to respond to the dramatic rise in the number of plastic containers. The Container Recycling Institute, a Washington-based group that monitors the recycling of bottles, estimated that Americans doubled the amount of bottled water they drank between 2003 and 2005, when more than 50 billion plastic bottles ended up in incinerators, landfills, or as litter.
“From the point of view of the Legislature, we’re looking for positive things to do that don’t cost money,’’ said Representative Alice K. Wolf, a Cambridge Democrat, who sponsored the bill and pointed out that nearly 100 municipalities have resolutions in support of changing the law. “This is good for the environment, and it actually raises money,’’ she said.
Opponents of the bottle law say that expanding it amounts to a tax that raises the cost of beverages, promotes fraud by encouraging cross-border sales of bottles, and curbs efforts to expand other recycling programs.
They argue the state would be better off encouraging curbside recycling, used in fewer than half of the state’s 351 communities.
“It’s an archaic approach to waste reduction,’’ said Chris Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which represents more than 50 supermarkets in Massachusetts. “At the end of the day, I don’t anticipate that there will be a different result this year from previous years. The only reason there would be a different result is if it’s about money.’’
At the hearing yesterday, environmental groups and beverage industry representatives offered opposing statistics to support their arguments.
Environmental Protection Commissioner Laurie Burt said 80 percent of the containers included in the existing bottle law get recycled, while 67 percent of nondeposit containers end up as litter in streams, parks, or on the streets.
“Since its inception, the bottle bill has been remarkably consistent, and we’ve seen excellent redemption numbers,’’ she said. “And now it is time to include other similar bottles in the program.’’
Kevin Dietly - a principal at Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, a Westford firm hired by the Massachusetts Food Association - told lawmakers that the proposed law would cost consumers as much as $85 million per year, raise the price of most noncarbonated beverages by 5 cents on top of the nickel deposit, and would improve the state’s recycling rate by less than 1 percent.
“Expanding the deposit law would provide minimal environmental benefit at a substantial cost,’’ said Dietly, who has long opposed bottle laws.
“Given the poor return on investment and the collateral damage caused in the form of increased fraud and adverse impacts on existing recycling programs, an alternative path should be explored.’’
Proponents of the proposed law said Dietly’s arguments are misleading and called it absurd to suggest that allowing people to redeem deposits on their bottles reduces other recycling efforts. They also rebutted the notion of an expense to the state, saying the existing law generates revenue.
While the arguments for and against the law have changed little in recent years, Secretary Ian Bowles of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs said the recent expansion of bottle laws in New York and Connecticut is changing the terms of the debate. He said he has found an increased openness on the part of bottling companies to the proposed changes in Massachusetts.
“I think the overall atmosphere is different,’’ he said after addressing lawmakers. “We’re now the largest remaining state north of New Jersey that hasn’t acted. For the companies to have harmonized state standards makes it easier for them to conduct their business and price their products uniformly. I think this just adds complexity for them.’’
For the bill to pass, it would probably need the support of House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray. Both declined to comment through their spokesmen.
But advocates insisted they are more optimistic about the bill’s chances than ever before. They said that of 17 members of the committee, eight have cosponsored the bill, four have expressed support, and none have come out in opposition.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/10/08/battle_to_expand_bottle_law_heats_up/?page=full