December 30, 2007
Nostalgia inspires commissioners’ bottle return proposal
By Meg Bernhardt
As a child, Frederick County Commissioner John L. Thompson Jr. used to drag a red Radio Flyer wagon along the back streets of New Market, collecting empty bottles to return for a few pennies apiece.
He would take them to Roland Warfield's General Store, get a little bit of money, and buy ammunition for his BB gun.
As he grew up, the manufacturers stopped making refillable glass bottles and instead made "no deposit, no return" bottles and cans for beverages.
Those bottles end up in the county's landfill off Reich's Ford Road, or shipped to a landfill in Virginia as the county runs out of space.
Thompson and the other Frederick County Commissioners want to reinstate a bottle return system in Frederick County -- this time making it mandatory for retailers to participate and then asking them to recycle the bottles, rather than reuse them.
They've asked Frederick County's representatives to the Maryland General Assembly to introduce the measure during the next session, which begins in January.
The delegation has not supported the bill in the past -- Thompson has introduced it on and off for the past six or seven years to no avail, he said. It appears unlikely state lawmakers will go for it this year as they question whether it would hurt retailers. They have advocated for a statewide bottle return bill instead.
Thompson's proposal would give the county authority to create a mandatory bottle return system, but first officials would determine whether enough surrounding jurisdictions have adopted it to make the system practical.
Under the mandatory system, the county would require consumers to pay a deposit of as much as 5 cents per beverage container when buying the drink. Then, they could return it to a retailer after it is emptied and get the deposit back.
Montgomery County has a similar ordinance on the books.
Thompson believes container manufacturers should bear the burden of problems created by their trash, rather than leave society to do so.
He said one of two things will happen: either the market will absorb the increased costs of bottle return, or it won't.
"If they are absorbed, that's good," he said. "We have another product or service out there that reduces the general cost on society or the taxpayer. If it can't be absorbed, that will be sufficient incentive for folks to change the product packaging that they use into something that is more conducive to recycling or reuse."
Originally, beverage containers were considered more valuable if they could be reused several times, but then that began to change, said Mike Marschner, director of the county's Utilities and Solid Waste Division.
"After (World War) II, cans began replacing glass bottles in the beer industry," Marschner said. "Cans were more convenient and their disposability helped boost sales at the expense of refillable glass bottles."
Thompson isn't the only one who remembers collecting bottles as a child.
Delegate Sue Hecht, a Democrat representing Frederick, said she collected bottles at the Montgomery County fair as a kid and made "big bucks."
She said she'd like to look at bottle collection as a statewide initiative, and pointed out the state is requiring manufacturers of electronic waste to help pay for its cleanup.
Commissioner David Gray also collected bottles when he was growing up in Ohio. He supports the bottle bill.
"I think it's a more sound approach to environmental cleanup than even recycling because it makes the producer bear the responsibility," Gray said.
The bill has been opposed by retailers and bottle manufacturers, however.
Delegate Paul Stull, a Republican who represents Frederick County, said those lobbyists also opposed a statewide bill proposed last year.
He sits on the House Environmental Matters Committee that took up the bill, though it never came up for a committee vote.
Stull said retailers testified it would be expensive to hire someone to store and pack the bottles. He said it could hurt Maryland's businesses because people could drive from other states and return bottles for money, even though they never paid the deposit.
That problem would only be made worse if the delegation proceeds with a bill that affects just Frederick County, he said. Even if other counties sign on, it won't be the entire state, and Maryland is still too small for such a system, Stull said.
"It's a good point (Thompson's) trying to make (that) he hates to see all this trash along the highway, and I do too, but I'm not sure putting a fee on it would help us at this time," Stull said.
Delegate Rick Weldon, a Republican representing Frederick and Washington counties, also said he's against the county bottle return proposal.
He opposes it because it relies on state lawmakers to pass legislation before Frederick has found other counties in the region willing to impose a mandatory return system as a group.
"Instead of having the legislature pass enabling legislation, why don't you go out and build that coalition so when you come to the delegation, you already have interest in place to do this?" Weldon said.
He said he would consider supporting a statewide bill if it makes it out of committee, but would need to do more research.
Thompson wants to have Frederick's bill in place, or see a statewide bill pass as soon as possible. He said voters need to put more pressure on their state lawmakers to help the county get the tools it needs to increase the recycling rate.
If manufacturers aren't held responsible for bottle waste, Thompson said the county taxpayers are left to find a solution.
"That something else as of this moment is putting them in the tractor trailers and sending them down to (available landfill space in) Virginia," Thompson said. "That costs $16 and $18 million a year, and it ain't gonna get any less as fuel costs increase and holes get farther away."
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=69395
