Editorial

Timing wrong to expand state's bottle deposit law

Timing is everything, as the old saying goes.

And based on this idea, we have to conclude the renewed push by Michigan United Conservation Clubs to expand the bottle deposit law is not good.

The group, which spearheaded the bottle bill 32 years ago, now wants to add water, juice and other noncarbonated beverage containers to the recycling program passed by voters in 1976.

We'll even concede that the bottle bill, amid all the controversy, seems to have done its job. It has cut down tremendously on highway litter, a critical issue considering Michigan is a tourist state. Also, it has boosted recycling efforts, something that is good for the environment.

People return 97 percent of the 5.5 billion cans and bottles for which they pay a deposit. They recycle only 20 percent of increasingly popular plastic water bottles, which didn't even exist 32 years ago. Nearly 1 billion noncarbonated drink containers are thrown away each year in Michigan.

Michigan is the only state in the Great Lakes region with a bottle law, but it still has the lowest overall recycling rate. The rate also is below the national average.

The conservation clubs say they want the Legislature to amend the current bottle law. But that takes a three-quarters vote, something that is very difficult to get. The groups also are considering a ballot initiative to let the voters decide.

Either way, expanding the law may not be a bad idea, but there are several serious considerations to be examined.

Most are economic concerns.

Businesses, especially small businesses, usually bear the brunt of any changes and many are already reeling under the weight of the state tax increases on services and income.

Many stores, especially the larger grocery stores, are using machines that take bottle and can returns and print refund receipts. But each machine costs between $25,000 and $30,000, plus maintenance.

Expanding the bottle law to noncarbonated beverages will mean even more expense to update existing equipment.

Also it will be costly for grocery stores and convenience stores to separate and handle additional water and juice bottles. Eventually, the costs could be passed on to customers or eaten by stores battling in the extremely competitive grocery industry.

The state's unclaimed deposit fund gives 75 percent of the money to the Cleanup and Redevelopment Trust Fund, where it is distributed to various environmental efforts. The other 25 percent goes to retailers to help them cover the costs of the bottle return operation.

If the bottle bill is expanded, the state should increase the amount of money that goes to retailers. It's only fair.

But now is not the time.

With the economy in such a shaky state, any extra stress now on businesses might just be the straw that breaks the stores' financial backs.

We need to help our businesses survive in these volatile economic times.

The bottle deposit expansion may seem like a good idea, and in theory it is. But today, in practice, it wouldn't be a wise decision.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/071308/opi_20080713292.shtml