April 26, 2009

The News Journal
Opinion

Unclaimed deposits should belong to Del.
By RON WILLIAMS

Sources inside the Markell administration are seriously considering changes to the 20-year-old bottle bill law that most people in Delaware willingly ignore.

Since no one has ever taken the 5-cent deposit seriously in this state, that means that millions of dollars in nickels have been stuck in the pockets of the beer, soda and water distributors.

In researching the law, I also found a totally worthless make-work provision that should be repealed. As the program now works, tavern and restaurant owners pay their wholesalers -- beer distributors such as NKS -- $1.20 per case of beer, 5 cents a bottle. If the tavern or restaurant chooses to return the bottles they receive a credit of $1.20 per case. But apparently many high-volume bars at the beaches don't bother to return their bottles and the $1.20 per case goes into the distributor's pockets. The law, however, makes it clear there is no need for that extra paperwork between the distributor and retailer. The law reads that retailers cannot charge customers the 5-cent deposit on the beer they purchased from the distributor as long as the beverages are sold on premises. So what's the purpose of charging retailers the $1.20 per case? Could it be so the distributors collect the $1.20 if the retailer doesn't return bottles? More pocket-lining.

These millions of dollars should be going back to the state in the form of general-fund revenue if the consumers don't want to redeem the bottles, not to help the profit margin of the beer distributors. If the legislature won't change the law to take the money back from the handful of closely held liquor and beer families in this state, then simply do away with the bottle tax.

One source told me that the distributors are perfectly willing to live with an additional beer and liquor tax, as proposed by Gov. Markell, as long as the state doesn't fool around with the bottle bill tax. Makes one wonder?

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090426/OPINION05/904260301/1004/OPINION