Editorial

Expansion of 'bottle bill' long overdue

The State of Connecticut is turning over every stone and looking in every drawer for ways to reduce cost and increase revenue. In such an economic climate, we don't blame Hartford one bit for coveting unclaimed bottle deposits although the image of Gov. M. Jodi Rell picking up soda and beer cans along the Interstate does come to mind. Disturbing visions aside, this is a good time to take a fresh look at Connecticut's "Bottle Bill."

Connecticut is one of 11 states with a bottle bill of some sort in place. Ten additional states are reportedly considering bottle redemption laws.

If our legislators had included water and juice bottles in the state's original Bottle Bill we wouldn't be dealing with the issue now. To be fair, the original bill, which went into effect in 1980, was crafted before the great popularity of bottled water, juices and sports drinks that we've seen in recent years.

Proponents of the new bill say it will reduce trash, extend the life of landfills, save municipalities "trash tipping fees" and increase recycling of glass and plastic.

There are actually two bills being proposed, SB 662 and SB 661. SB 662, the "regular" bill, deals only with water bottles. The "expanded" bill, SB 661, encompasses most

noncarbonated beverages including water, sports drinks, fruit drinks and bottled teas and coffees.

The expanded bill defines noncarbonated beverages as water and other noncarbonated, nonalcoholic and nondairy drinks. Syrups, concentrates, food flavoring, soups and soy and rice milk are excluded.

The provisions of the proposed bills apply to carbonated beverages of 2 liters or less in size and noncarbonated beverages of 20 ounces or less. Both bills would also increase the bottle deposit from 5 cents to 10 cents and would increase the redemption center handling fee to 3 cents per container.

The expansion of Connecticut's "Bottle Bill" certainly makes sense from an environmental perspective. In addition, proponents say it will enhance the state's revenue base, obviously an important consideration in difficult economic times.

Industry has expressed concerns about the expansion of the regulations and legislators will need to work to reduce the economic impact on businesses as much as possible. Unfortunately, Connecticut has a reputation for being "business unfriendly" so part of the recovery process should involve attracting new business to the state.

"It is past time for a common-sense expansion of our bottle bill and since water and other single-serve beverages are often packaged in the same containers as carbonated beverages, the infrastructure is already in place to make this change," said state Senate Minority Leader John McKinney,

R28.

We agree.

http://www.westport-news.com/opinion/ci_11697225