Editorial

Oregon bottle-bill reform loses some fizz

Grocers and beverage distributors say this is a terrible time to be tinkering with Oregon's bottle bill.

The economy, you know.

Of course, the same folks always say the timing is bad. That's what they've argued in Salem every time lawmakers have tried to update the landmark legislation since it was first passed 38 years ago.

At its birth in 1971, Oregon's nickel-deposit bottle bill was considered pioneering. Today, though, still stuck on a nickel, the law is merely pioneer-era, as in "musty relic."

It's true that most of the copy-cat states that followed with bottle bills of their own are still stuck on a nickel, too. Oregon, however, as the nation's historic innovator on such anti-litter legislation, ought to keep leading the way.

That's why Gov. Ted Kulongoski introduced House Bill 2184. It began as a collection of sensible bottle bill updates, recommended by a task force the Legislature set up in 2007, but the bill has already been watered down to a disappointing degree in committee.

For example, the bill's provision raising the beverage container deposit to 10 cents was put off until 2016 at the earliest -- and would take effect only if bottle-bill recycling drops below 80 percent in 2015. Also, a House panel dumped the bill's call for adding deposits for wine and liquor bottles.

Those moves weakened the bill considerably and should have been sufficient to mollify the grocery and beverage industry lobbies. Not so, however. They're still fighting the amended bill, because it would require deposits for sports drinks, coffee, tea, juice and similar non-carbonated beverages that currently are exempt from bottle-bill deposits.

The industries complain the additional deposits would create a hardship on shoppers and more hassles for grocers in a troubled economy. Both arguments might have merit, but they're easily outweighed by the benefits. Juice, coffee and sports-drink containers, which now have a dismal recycling rate of roughly 30 percent, would be recycled at a rate exceeding 80 percent.

The business lobbies also argue that it's unreasonable to expand the bottle bill during the same year that the law began requiring deposits on bottled water. That program, passed by the 2007 Legislature, began in January and appears to be succeeding after some early technical glitches.

Lest anyone forget, however, juice, coffee and sports-drink containers were stripped out of the 2007 bill as a compromise. It was based on the expectation that the additional containers would be added after the bottled-water program was up and working, as is the case.

What's left of the bottle-bill reforms face a critical work session in the House environment and water committee Thursday. The panel should resist watering down this bill any further and send it to the full House for a vote.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/oregon_bottlebill_reform_loses.html