|
January 26, 2008
Bottle bill resurfaces for lawmakers
By Mannix Porterfield
REGISTER-HERALD REPORTER
CHARLESTON — As surely as the winds churn in January across the Kanawha
River, a bottle bill finds its way into the journal room of the West Virginia
Legislature.
Is this the year, the sixth one straight, in fact, that one reaches the
governor’s desk?
No one is making any predictions, but West Virginia-Citizen Action Group is
waging a renewed campaign in this generally non-controversial, election-year
session to pass a bill that would impose a refundable, 10-cent deposit on all
beverage containers.
Intent is to provide an incentive to consumers to get their deposit back by
turning in such containers, rather than heave them out the window of a motor
vehicle.
“We’re not creating anything new here,” says Linda Frame, program director for
WV-CAG.
“Eleven states with a bottle law recycle more than the other 39 states put
together. They’ve also seen a drastic reduction in their litter since they’ve
gotten a deposit put on their containers.”
Care was taken in the proposal not to limit where consumers are allowed to
return empty containers, Frame said.
“Other states force retailers to take them back,” she said.
“Our bill does not do that. What we envision are solid waste authorities taking
them and private businesses sprouting up across the state to take the containers
and pick up the handling fee.”
A Kroger store or a 7-Eleven likewise could take back containers.
“If I were a retailer, I would want to take them back because I’d be getting the
businesses coming to my store,” Frame said.
The logic is understandable: Consumers returning empty containers are likely to
shop while there.
“And what we’ve been telling the retailers is there are companies that will set
up in their parking lot so they don’t have to have these containers coming into
their stores,” she said.
Opposition in recent sessions has been led by Kevin Dietly, a spokesman for
Northbridge Environmental, a Westford, Mass., firm that says bottle laws provide
an inefficient means of ridding litter and are open to fraud.
On both counts, Frame strongly disagrees.
“Michigan has a 90 percent reduction in litter,” she said. “Hawaii is new. It’s
up into the 70s now. It’s phenomenal. You’re putting a value on these
containers.”
The Senate version is being led by Sen. Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha, while Delegate
Barbara Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, is the lead sponsor in the House.
Dietly maintains fraud is a constant problem in states where refundable deposits
are imposed on containers.
Frame harbors no illusions about that, but says the problem can be corrected.
“It’s a problem because containers have a value on them,” she said.
“So, sure, people are going to try to manipulate the system, just like they do
with anything. As long as we have strong enforcement, we can prevent the fraud.
This happened in Michigan recently. Some folks came in from another state, and
they were caught and they were punished.”
To Frame, the solution is easy to figure out.
“Our bill has some teeth in it to catch people because people are going to try,”
she added.
— E-mail:
mannix@register-herald.com
|
