Culver last week laid out a budget that would increase spending by 6 percent over the current year. Part of the governor's plan for paying for spending increases includes overhauling the bottle bill. Culver would double the deposit on soda and alcohol containers, making it 10 cents. But customers would only get 8 cents on return. One remaining cent would go to state environmental funding. The other penny would go to grocers and redemption centers. Another change under Culver's proposal: The deposit money from the cans that go unclaimed would revert to the state instead of distributors.
Everybody got that?
That means consumers would pay a tax on soda cans, grocers would get a penny back on every container they handle, and the state would now get a cut of the bottle bill. Let's see how many people that pleases. Show of hands? Hmm. Pretty much just the governor loves this idea. And even he concedes he's open to compromise.
The state's Resource Enhancement and Protection program is worthy of increased funding. The challenge, as always, lies in finding the money.
Where is it written that the state's supermarkets must bear the burden of recycling? Grocers have never been happy about having to collect cans with tobacco juice, cigarette butts, bugs and God knows what else residing in them. This unsanitary task is a curious combination with food sales. Grocers would rather have no bottle bill at all. But realistically, that's not going to happen. Since it was put in place in 1978, the nickel-back plan has brought Iowa to 86 percent recycling on cans and bottles. Nationally, aluminum cans are recycled at a rate of only about
51 percent.
If we're rewriting the bottle bill, let's attempt two things: to make it consistent and to make it fair.
From a consistency standpoint, why soda containers and not juice bottles? Why beer and not water? If we're going to recycle bottles and cans at a nickel apiece, let's not pick and choose our beverages. Let's put a deposit on all of them. If grocers need to establish redemption centers outside of stores to accommodate the increase in volume, let's direct part of the deposit fee back to grocers to help them make that happen.
Expanding the bill to include all beverage containers and working with retailers to facilitate redemption -- those are the priorities. Allowing the state a cut to fund anything -- even worthwhile environmental programs -- isn't necessarily part of the equation. Why the state should get to keep uncollected deposits is a head-scratcher.
House Speaker Pat Murphy, of Dubuque, sounded less than enthusiastic about Culver's proposal when he said, "We'll probably be looking at a different direction than the governor has proposed." Murphy and the Legislature should consider expanding the bottle bill to include all beverages and work with grocers to find a plan they can live with.
Editorials reflect the consensus of the Telegraph Herald Editorial Board: Jim Normandin (publisher), Brian Cooper, Ken Brown, Monty Gilles, Amy Gilligan and Sharon Welborn.
http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=188193
