Editorial

Bottle depots needed first

It’s pretty easy to do good if somebody else pays the price. That’s what the Oregon Senate did when it passed an expansion of the Bottle Bill, which would add to the burden of grocery stores.

Senate Bill 707, now sent to the House, would add water and “flavored water” to the drinks on which container deposits must be charged. It says retailers with under 5,000 square feet may refuse to accept empties of a brand they do not sell, and may also refuse to accept more than 50 empties at a time. Bigger retailers don’t get that option. They must take empties of other brands and up to 144 at a time.

The bill also makes manufacturers and distributors liable for collecting empties from the stores and paying them the refund value.

And finally, the bill calls for a task force to study how best to collect containers and make refunds.

Seems like the legislation has things backward.

Legislators know that retailers object to expanding the bottle law to include more containers because it forces them to deal with more empties and a bigger mess. So why not attack the issue the other way around? Research better ways of handling containers first, and then put the conclusions into a bill?

Stores should not have to deal with millions of empties and whatever they contain, especially if they’ve been gathered from trash cans, Dumpsters and roadside ditches. For that, the state ought to set up recycling depots and figure out a way for people to get their deposits back when taking the empties there.

So far legislators can’t think of a way to do that, so they’re ready to stick grocery stores with a bigger mess and the accompanying cost.

The House is reported to be just as enthusiastic about this approach as the Senate. Grocers may wonder if they’re operating in the wrong state. (hh)

http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2007/04/25/news/opinion/5edi01_bottle.txt

Follow-up editorial written on April 27