A Recycling Plan to Fill the Gap

If California wanted a simple, efficient bottle-return law, it would have followed the example of Oregon, Connecticut and other states back in 1986. The state could have put a nickel deposit on ordinary-size cans and bottles, with the money recoverable when the empties were returned to the supermarket. Or empties could have been traded in as the deposit on a new six-pack. Larger containers could have fetched a dime. But supermarket chains adamantly opposed such a law, in part because they did not want to bother handling the empties.

So lawmakers opted for a complicated plan charging a 2.5-cent deposit for soda and beer cans and bottles, and 5 cents for larger containers. The program established a system of recycling centers where cans and bottles could be cashed in.

Burdened with such handicaps, the California redemption law has not been an overwhelming success. The statewide recycling rate exceeded the 80% goal just once, in 1992, and now rests at 74%. Even so, more than 100 billion containers have been saved from California landfills. The law expired at the end of 1997, but was extended unchanged while the Legislature considered an overhaul.

The vehicle for reform is Senate Bill 332, sponsored by Sen. Byron Sher (D-Stanford). Its major feature is to extend coverage to containers not covered now, an estimated 2 billion annually. These include containers for non-carbonated water, juices, bottled tea, sports liquids and others. The change should make it easier for consumers to sort out which bottles and cans they can take to the recycling center.

There are other complicated changes including a $5 million annual increase in processing fees designed to boost recycling, and an additional $10 million in aid to local curbside recycling programs.

The food manufacturing industry opposes the inclusion of juices and noncarbonated drinks, calling it a hidden tax. But it’s not a tax and the fee is redeemable as with other containers.

No one is certain the reform will substantially improve California’s recycling record. But nothing else has broad political support; supermarkets adamantly oppose taking returned empties. Doing nothing will leave California without any program.

Sher’s bill has passed the Senate and awaits action in the Assembly. In the absence of a better solution, SB 332 deserves final passage and the governor’s signature.