March 4, 2004

General Law Committee
Testimony Against Raised Bill #43, AA Repealing the Refund Value of Certain Beverage Containers

Senator Colapietro, Representative Fox and Members of the General Law Committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to share concerns about this important issue. I am C.J. May, Recycling Coordinator at Yale University. Today I offer written testimony on behalf of the Connecticut Recyclers Coalition, a non-profit organization of recyclers and solid waste professionals.

The Connecticut Recyclers Coalition supports our state’s “Bottle Bill” and opposes this attempt at its repeal through Bill #43. The current system of placing a five-cent deposit on beverage containers serves the best interest of the citizens of Connecticut. It provides a strong incentive for recycling bottles and cans generated at home and away from home. Repealing the Bottle Bill would create unnecessary financial, operational and environmental woes for local governments and their residents.

The Bottle Bill was originally created to combat littering on roadways and other public areas. It has succeeded in reducing the littering of redeemable beverage containers and has also provided a successful recycling incentive. However, municipal curbside recycling programs are not able to capture the growing number of plastic, glass and metal containers consumed in our increasingly on-the-go society. Students, workers and families drink beverages on the road, at events and in public areas. The best way to ensure that these containers are recycled in compliance with State Law is to keep their redemption value.

Repeal of the Bottle Bill would have significant negative impacts on municipalities. Connecticut citizens would add the “consumed at home” portion of their beverage containers to curbside collection bins. Collection trucks would fill up more rapidly and would take longer to complete collection runs. Air pollution and labor costs would increase. The current system allows residents to return bottles and cans as a part of their trips to local stores. Because they do so as a part of a planned trip they do not burn extra gasoline, create additional pollution or add to the expense budgets of municipalities. Bottles and cans for beverages consumed “away from home” would no longer be collected for their nickel value. Litter and associated management costs would surely increase.

Many of Connecticut’s needy citizens and non-profit organizations rely upon the income generated by redeeming beverage containers. Without this source of income needs would go unmet or the responsibility for filling them would be shifted to municipalities and taxpayers.

Connecticut would experience a setback to achieving its own recycling goal of 40% if it repeals the Bottle Bill. In the ten U.S. states with bottle bills the container recycling rate averages 80%. This is 2-3 times the rate in states without bottle bills. Repealing the bill would fly in the face of our own long-term solid waste management plans.

Increased litter would not be the only environmental cost of eliminating our state’s Bottle Bill. For every ton of aluminum cans not recycled more than 4 tons of greenhouse gases are produced in the replacement process. As well, more than 100 pounds of sulfur oxides (SOx), 30-50 lbs of nitrogen oxides (NOx), and 40-70 lbs of airborne particulates are produced. Connecticut is downwind from many of these production facilities. We have suffered enough from air pollution created in other states.

In addition to re-affirming its commitment to the Bottle Bill, Connecticut can advance the cause of recycling and its many benefits by taking three further steps: 1) recovering the estimated $20 million in unclaimed nickel deposits, i.e. “escheats,” 2) increasing the deposit charged from a nickel to a dime and 3) expanding the Bottle Bill to include other beverage containers.

We can provide much needed capital to our troubled state budget by recovering an estimated $20 million in unclaimed bottle and can deposits each year. Even with the benefit of increased recycling due to the nickel deposit, many containers are never returned. In Connecticut unclaimed deposits have remained in the coffers of beverage distributors. In Massachusetts and Michigan, however, unclaimed deposits are used to support government programs. The Connecticut Recyclers Coalition advocates following this wise example. The State could put a mere 25% of the escheats into the currently un-funded DEP Recycling program. The remaining 75%, or $15 million, would go towards general funding.

By increasing the deposit from five cents to 10 cents per container Connecticut will offer added incentive for recycling. This will bring us closer to the state-mandated goal of a 40% recycling rate, give added life to landfills and resource recovery facilities, and provide more income to needy individuals and non-profit organizations.

We can enjoy further environmental and financial benefits by expanding the Bottle Bill to include not only soda and beer containers but also the increasing variety of juice, tea and other new beverages. This will reduce litter, pollution and curbside collection costs.

The Connecticut Recyclers Coalition has a diverse membership of professionals engaged in recycling, solid waste and related activities. As a coalition of experienced managers we ask you to do what is best for Connecticut by preserving and expanding the Bottle Bill.

Thank you.

Cyril John May
President
Connecticut Recyclers Coalition
cyril.may@yale.edu

For more information on the benefits of bottle bills please reference the CRC’s Bottle Bill fact sheet or view the Container Recycling Institute’s Bottle Bill Resource Guide at: www.bottlebill.org.