Gov. Jack Markell said Monday he will veto House Bill 201, which would have repealed Delaware’s “Bottle Bill” that places a 5-cent deposit on beverage containers.
“Delaware is quickly earning a reputation as a leader in environmental issues like alternative energy and climate prosperity, in part, because we recognize the connection between the health of our economy and the health of our environment,” Markell said. “This bill as written, without additional consumer protections or a plan to improve our recycling rate, does not move us forward. I am hopeful that by working cooperatively with many interested participants, we can, in fact, move forward.”
The full text of the veto message follows:
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE 145TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY:
House Bill 201 repeals Delaware's "Bottle Bill," which can be found in Subchapter III, Chapter 60, Title 7 of the Delaware Code. I have considered this legislation in detail and I have met and discussed the issues related to this legislation with retailers, distributors, environmentalists, legislators, members of my cabinet and my staff. Pursuant to Article III, Section 18 of the Delaware Constitution and only after careful consideration, I am returning House Bill 201 to the Delaware House of Representatives without my signature.
By way of background, Delaware’s Bottle Bill was enacted in 1982 and places a five cent refund value on beverage bottles returned. The purpose was to reduce littering by encouraging the return, reuse and recycling of beverage bottles, and to reduce utilization of our landfills. It can be fairly said that Delaware's Bottle Bill has contributed to a reduction in litter alongside our roadways and parks, as well as reduced landfill usage. Indeed, some estimate that one-third of glass bottles are returned to retailers for recycling. House Bill 201 eliminates this initiative in its entirety, without any proposed alternative
While the Bottle Bill does help reduce litter and promote recycling, the problems with this 29 year old initiative are notable. The use of plastic bottles in lieu of glass has grown significantly, but very few plastic bottles are returned. Cans are no longer included within the law’s scope and the program is otherwise cumbersome and costly to administer for retailers. There is also very little accountability in this program, so its effectiveness is difficult to measure. If one assumes a 30% return rate for glass bottles, this equates to 70% of the deposits being collected not being returned to consumers. In the end, consumers are paying for a recycling initiative that is not very effective.
Importantly, there is nothing in House Bill 201 that prohibits distributors from continuing to charge five additional cents, or increasing their prices to offset any loss of bottle deposits they have become accustomed to keeping. Indeed, the legislation does not even provide a mechanism for consumers to recover their deposits on bottles purchased prior to the effective date of the repeal. While paying for an ineffective recycling initiative is bad, continuing to pay, after the program is abolished, is even worse.
There is widespread recognition that Delaware’s recycling rate is too low and there have been various recycling initiatives proposed over the years. While proponents of House Bill 201, under the leadership of Representative John J. Viola, deserve significant credit for calling attention to the inadequacies of our current Bottle Bill, I believe we need to review this issue in a larger context that takes into consideration the environment, the industry and Delaware taxpayers. Although I am sympathetic to those who argue that the current Bottle Bill system is broken, I am committed to doing what I can to ensure that we replace it with something better.
To that end, I have directed Secretary Collin O'Mara of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Alan Levin, the Director of the Delaware Economic Development Office, to work with Representative Viola, other members of the General Assembly, beverage distributors and retailers, and the environmental community to comprehensively examine how beverage bottles are distributed, sold, returned and recycled. My hope is that we can propose a workable solution when the General Assembly returns in January, 2010.
This hope is bolstered by my recent meetings with beverage distributors, retailers and environmentalists, as I have heard good faith commitments to improve our current recycling efforts, based on best practices around the country and around the world. We should capitalize on this shared commitment to develop alternatives to the current Bottle Bill that will further promote waste diversion and recycling efforts in Delaware, while being fair to Delaware taxpayers.
In closing, Delaware is quickly earning a reputation as a leader in environmental issues like alternative energy and climate prosperity, in part, because we recognize the connection between the health of our economy and the health of our environment. This bill as written, without additional consumer protections or a plan to improve our recycling rate, does not move us forward. I am hopeful that by working cooperatively with many interested participants, we can, in fact, move forward.
For these reasons, I must veto House Bill 201 and return it to the House of Representatives without my signature. The Delaware Beverage Association and Delaware Food Industry Council expressed disappointment in Markell's veto.
Beverage Association and Food Industry Council frustrated by veto
In a press release Monday, representatives of the Association and the Council said "the people of Delaware were denied today an historic tax cut, and a path to a more efficient recycling system, by Governon Jack Markell and his veto of legislation repealing the state’s bottle bill that charges consumers an extra five cents for beverage containers."
The repeal of the bottle bill means that Delaware residents will need to continue to pay the tax and haul dirty, empty beverage containers back to their local grocery stores in order to have that tax refunded, the press release said.
“We’re disappointed that Govenor Markell ignored the Legislature and vetoed a significant tax cut by nixing the repeal of the state’s bottle bill,” said Ellen Valentino, executive director of the Delaware Beverage Association. “The Legislature gave the people of Delaware the opportunity to reap both a tax cut and a more efficient means to recycle all its recyclable materials. In this economy and environment, it’s disconcerting that the governor would undermine these cutting-edge improvements.”
The bottle bill is proving to be more of a nuisance than a benefit to the state and needs to be replaced rather than fixed, Valentino said. It costs consumers more money for their beverages. It’s inconvenient for consumers who want to return the bottles for a refund. And, importantly, it is ineffective in increasing recycling. In addition,Valentino added, it causes a significant burden on local grocers, as well as a sanitation concern for their businesses.
Julie Miro Wenger, executive director of the Delaware Food Council, said the governor’s action also hinders pursuit of single-stream curbside recycling, which is more effective and efficient. This better way of recycling saves the state money and provides lower emissions and energy use than a bottle bill, so it’s actually better for the environment.
“We believe this is a vote against the business community, consumers and the environment. We believe the way to move forward is with a comprehensive single stream recycling program,” said Wenger.
The cities of Wilmington and Newark already offer residents single-stream curbside recycling to great success, as does the Delaware Solid Waste Authority, she said.
Valentino agreed: “By not seizing upon repeal of the ineffective bottle bill and its hidden tax for the more efficient single-stream curbside recycling, the governor is denying the people of Delaware a win-win situation. People would have gained the convenience of recycling all recyclable materials at the curbside of their home, without the burden of a 5-cent tax that they may or may not have reclaimed."
"We thank the Legislature for being innovative and having the foresight to pursue a better way, and we will continue to work with the governor on improving recycling in the state,” she added.
