In Our View: Bottle Bill Worth a Shot

Admittedly, it is a long shot. But in the arena of promoting big ideas, the longest journey begins with a single step. So it is that we recommend Washington consider a bottle bill requiring a deposit on bottles and cans that is paid for at purchase and redeemed when the empties are returned.

There is nothing new about this. Oregon broke ground on the concept in 1971, and since then, nine other states and most Canadian provinces have adopted the strategy for reducing litter and the wanton discarding of beverage containers along roadsides, on sidewalks, or in parks. While the idea has been long established, a couple recent items have got us thinking about this issue; one is that on Saturday, Oregon’s deposit will go from 5 cents per container to 10 cents — the first increase in the 46-year history of the law; another is that a growing chorus of Clark County residents recently has decried the amount of litter in this area.

Oregon’s bottle bill, championed by then-Gov. Tom McCall, initially was designed as a method for reducing litter. If cans are worth money, the thinking goes, those cans are likely to find their way to a redemption center instead of winding up along the road. Various studies over the years have demonstrated that states with a bottle bill do, indeed, have less litter from beverage containers and less litter as a whole than states that do not require a deposit. When the Oregon Legislature debated the future of its law in 2011, state Sen. Mark Haas said, “When our children live with this kind of ethic, it makes them better people. It’s a symbol of what it means to be an Oregonian.”

Although that assessment might contain a bit of hyperbole, it is somewhat surprising that Washington — a state with a similar ethic — did not jump on the bottle bill train a generation ago.

But in 1979, a statewide ballot measure to establish a 5-cent deposit was defeated with 58 percent of the vote. And in 1982, an identical measure was defeated with 71 percent of the vote. In addition, the growth of curbside recycling in recent years has somewhat mitigated the need for deposits upon bottles and cans. It is easier to simply drop the empties in a bin and leave them in front of the house rather than traipse to a redemption center and feed them into a machine for a couple of bucks.

As we said, this is a long shot.

Yet the benefits of requiring a deposit on bottles and cans are worth exploring. For one, there is the inevitable reduction in litter. For another, there is the minor economic opportunity provided for those willing to pick up containers that have been discarded but may be returned in exchange for cash. And finally, there is the windfall of containers on which a deposit is paid and never redeemed.

That last item points out a shortcoming in the Oregon law. Willamette Week recently reported that about $30 million worth of deposits go unredeemed each year in that state — and that money goes to beverage distributors. Carefully crafted legislation could ensure that the excess revenue goes to the state, and that the funds could be used for litter pickup or other beautification projects. Meanwhile, it would be prudent to retain curbside recycling of cans and bottles. If a consumer chooses to simply drop the containers into a bin, the state can redeem those, as well.

With the benefits outweighing the costs and with an opportunity to enhance our status as an environmentally conscious state, a bottle bill in Washington is worth pursuing. Even if it is a long shot.