Editorial

Oregon blazed a trail when the Legislature approved the Bottle Bill in 1971, requiring a 5-cent deposit on bottles and cans of beer and soda pop. Just about everything connected to the Bottle Bill has changed since then. The Bottle Bill needs fundamental revisions, and the Legislature should not be too proud to copy the best recycling and waste-reduction ideas from other states.

Litter reduction was the primary goal of the 1971 law, and it worked - the number of cans and bottles in roadside ditches dropped dramatically. The fact that the Bottle Bill could divert significant amounts of material from landfills was an ancillary benefit; recycling at the household level was still a new concept. Systems for curbside collection of recyclables were years in the future, and markets for recycled materials were poorly developed.

The value of the nickel deposit has eroded steadily over the decades. If the Bottle Bill were adjusted for inflation, the deposit on a bottle or can would be about 30 cents. This erosion has led to a dropoff in the return rate. Discarded bottles and cans, once rare, have returned to Oregon roadsides.

Grocers' compliance with the Bottle Bill has been admirably widespread, but reluctant. Redeeming empty bottles and cans represents a labor cost and a storage problem - and a messy one at that. In recent years many groceries have installed automatic bottle and can return machines that shift the job of sorting and counting returnables to the consumer. Returning containers to the store has become time-consuming, even when the machines are working properly.

The biggest change of all, however, is the proliferation of types of beverages and containers. The Bottle Bill was written for a standard aluminum can and a couple of types of bottles, some of which could be reused. Since then a bewildering variety of beverages have come on the market - juices, teas and, unimagined 36 years ago, bottled water. The Bottle Bill doesn't cover these containers. They're recycled, thrown in the trash to be hauled to a landfill or tossed as litter.

As far as the waste stream goes, there's no difference between a returnable can or bottle containing beer or soda, and a non-returnable container filled with tea or water. But according to the state Department of Environmental Quality, 83 percent of containers covered by the Bottle Bill are recycled. Only a third of plastic water bottles are recycled, and for juices, teas and other beverages the rate is even lower.

Those low rates could be more than doubled by simply expanding the Bottle Bill to cover more types of beverages. State Sen. Joanne Verger, D-Coos Bay, has proposed a bill that would do just that. Under Senate Bill 481 the deposit on returnable containers would rise to 10 cents, and the deposit would be collected on every sealed bottle, can or jar that holds more than 7 ounces and less than 1 gallon of liquid.

Verger's proposal, however, should be regarded as a starting point. One key to a successful expansion of the Bottle Bill will be to enlist the support of grocers, or at least move them to a neutral stance. The Oregon Grocery Association has successfully resisted proposals to lengthen the list of returnable containers in the past, and in 1996 even persuaded voters to reject an initiative calling for a broader Bottle Bill.

It's possible that Oregon could move beyond a grocery-based container return program. The value of some of the materials involved - aluminum and plastic - may have climbed to a point that would allow redemption centers or curbside returnable collection programs to operate without subsidies. The value of uncollected deposits is currently estimated at $10 million a year, and would rise with an increase in the amount of the deposit and the number of containers covered. This money could also be captured to support a broader Bottle Bill.

Oregon was a pioneer in 1971. But other states have followed, adopting container deposit laws in later years when new developments in the beverage industry, recycling and retailing could be taken into account. The Legislature should borrow the best ideas from other states and graft them to an up-to-date deposit-and-return system. Oregonians are justly proud of their Bottle Bill - and they could be prouder still if it evolved to keep up with the many changes since its adoption.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/02/27/ed.edit.bottlebill.0227.p1.php?section=opinion