Editorial

If lawmakers won't lead on deposits, voters will

If Michigan residents get a chance to vote on expanding the state's seminal bottle deposit law, the decision may hinge on just a few factors.

-- Michigan's Beverage Container Act, overwhelmingly passed by state voters in November 1976, has been spectacularly successful. Every year, Michigan residents recycle about 97 percent of all containers subject to the 10-cent deposit, the highest rate in the nation.

-- According to polling by the Michigan United Conservation Clubs -- which wants to expand the bill to include water and juice bottles that are now exempt -- 76 percent of Michigan voters support such an expansion. If it makes it to the ballot, it's a slam dunk.

-- Michigan's grocery and retail establishments have gotten -- and will continue to get -- the dirty end of the stick. The job of collecting, smashing and cleaning those millions of bottles and cans has fallen to them.

It must also be remembered, however, that those same retailers are the ones who sell the beer, soda and water in the first place and profit from it, they get money from the deposit and the state to compensate for all that work, and they pass along their additional costs to us, the consumers.

But they have also become de facto recycling centers, which is not the job they signed on for.

State grocers and retailers say it would be better for the state to simply improve its curbside recycling to include all bottles and more. That may be. But the reality is that recycling is a community-by-comunity issue and there is no one-size-fits-all plan that could or would be mandated by the state.

If Grand Traverse County, with a population of just 80,000 or so, can't decide on a recycling plan, how do we expect 83 counties to fall in line?

And no one -- including grocers or bottlers, despite their lobbying -- is leading the charge to universal recycling. The industry's supposed alternative, then, is no alternative at all.

In fairness, any deposit program expansion must include more incentives for retailers, including cash and toughening laws against counterfeit can scams. Bearing the burden should have its rewards.

But state voters must not fall for the attempt to commingle an expansion of the deposit law and improving state recycling efforts. They are two different animals. The best thing to do now is expand the scope of the deposit law to include water and juice containers, and then after that tackle overall recycling.

Lawmakers should bend to the inevitable and vote to put the deposit issue on the November ballot. If not, environmental groups will do it for them, furthering Lansing's reputation as a do-nothing town.

However it gets on the ballot it will win, and win big, proving once again that Michigan residents care about their environment and will pay to keep it clean.