May 25, 2007
House Speaker Tosses Bottle Bill Plan
After Amann Declares It A `Dead' Issue, Sponsor Vows Another Try
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING
And COLIN POITRAS
House Speaker James Amann declared Thursday that the controversial bill to recycle water bottles is "dead," despite multiple efforts by supporters and environmentalists to revive the measure.
In strong language, Amann dismissed efforts by the state Senate to resurrect a bill that it had approved two weeks ago, only to see the legislation shot down by a legislative committee.
"We're not debating the bottle bill. It died," said Amann, who opposes the measure. "There's a process. We live and die by the process. It's dead. ... Right now, that thing is dead."
When told that the Senate supporters are talking about debating the bill again as an amendment, Amann responded, "They must have a lot of time on their hands. God bless them. They can do what they want."
State Sen. Bill Finch, a Bridgeport Democrat who is one of the bill's chief sponsors, was surprised by Amann's reluctance to consider the bill, which expands the current bottle deposit law to include containers for water and some other non-carbonated beverages.
"If this bill were to be brought up [before the entire House], it would pass overwhelmingly," Finch said.
Finch may try to reintroduce the bill in the Senate next week; he said he wants to talk with Amann first to reach an understanding before the legislative session adjourns June 6. The Senate approved the bill 26-7 and passed it on to the House, which referred it to the legislature's general law committee. The committee voted 13-4 to kill the bill on May 16.
"I'm going to remain optimistic," Finch said Thursday. "I know the speaker feels very strongly about protecting the environment. This is the most important bill I've ever offered in protecting the environment."
When the original bottle deposit bill was adopted in 1978, legislators could not have foreseen the explosion in the popularity of bottled water and sport drinks. As a result, those bottles are not mentioned in the existing law.
"The only reason these bottles aren't included in the [law] is because they don't have any fizz in them," Finch said. "This bill still has a lot of fizz."
Placing a nickel deposit on the bottles, he says, would increase recycling rates and prevent those bottles from being added to the waste stream.
State Rep. Christopher R. Stone, a Democrat who co-chairs the general law committee, oversaw the bill's scuttling at the committee level, as predicted in advance by Capitol insiders. Stone's hometown, East Hartford, hosts a massive Coca-Cola bottling plant, and the company has been opposed to the bill.
Saying that the expanded bill would be an unnecessary burden to manufacturers, retailers and consumers, Stone said it might be better to expand curbside recycling. He said he has heard from constituents who don't want to see the bill expanded.
If the bill returns to the House, Stone said, he would consider introducing an amendment possibly limiting the expanded bill to water bottles only. The amended bottle bill applies to water, sport drinks and juice bottles made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and does not apply to bottles containing dairy products or containers of more than 20 ounces.
Previous efforts to expand the bottle bill have faced fierce opposition from the Connecticut Food Association and the supermarket retail industry as well as big-time beverage wholesalers such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi who hired some of the state's most powerful lobbyists to protect their interests. Coke distributes Dasani bottled water, and Pepsi sells Aquafina.
At least three states - California, Hawaii and Maine - charge a 5-cent deposit on water bottles and non-carbonated drinks. New York and Massachusetts are considering it. After Michigan started charging a 10-cent deposit on carbonated beverages in 1978, its bottle return rate rose to more than 90 percent. Connecticut's redemption rate is about 70 percent.
The public relations arm of New Britain-based Gaffney Bennett, one of the Capitol's best-known lobbying firms, rejects the environmental arguments, based on 17 statewide studies across the country since 1989. Those studies, the firm says, show that "all noncarbonated beverage containers, including water, account for about 1.3 percent of litter." As a result, the firm says, the recycling bill would not lead to a significant change in the reduction of litter.
The Connecticut Food Associationhas said the change would cost retailers and distributors at least $31 million a year, with most of those costs being passed on to consumers.
Contact Christopher Keating at ckeating@courant.com.
Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant
