GERALD WEINAND

26 GROVE STREET
ROCKLAND, MAINE 04841
------------------------------
207.975.3945
email: gaweinand@roadrunner.com

REMARKS on LD 87

AN ACT to INCREASE the BOTTLE REDEMPTION DEPOSIT

to

Members of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources

Dear Sen. Carson, Rep. Tucker, and members of the Committee:

Thank you for you consideration of these remarks. I would also like to thank Rep. Beebe-Center for
sponsoring this bill for me.

As an avid bicycle rider, I spend several hours each week riding along State and local roads. Unlike
driving, my speed is slow enough to allow looking at the scenery around me. It also allows for
prolonged views of the swales and ditches along these roads, and the litter and trash that is in them,
much of which consists of beverage containers. I first wrote about what I saw in 2007, in a piece called
A Nickel isn't Worth Much Anymore. Twelve years later nothing has changed.

The history of bottling beverages is of interest. Initially, the bottles themselves were worth more than
their contents, and distributors needed these bottles returned for simple profitability. But as the
manufacture of bottles, and later cans, became less expensive, so did the necessity of having them
returned to be refilled. Those of a certain age will remember the phrase “No Deposit No Return” that
was often printed on bottles. These containers became worthless, trash, easily discarded out a car
window.

The increase in roadside litter paralleled the increase in car ownership, and the growth of markets to
serve that mobility. The issue of roadside litter was recognized in the early 1950's. In 1953, Keep
America Beautiful was founded by a group of concerned citizens, government agencies, and
corporations as a direct result of the growing litter problem. Then, as today, much of that litter was
beverage containers.

Vermont was the first state to enact a returnable law (1953), albeit on that was short lived due to
lobbying from the beer industry. It wasn't until the late 1960's that momentum began to build; the
television advertisement that came to be known as the “Crying Indian” in large part rallied the nation
about the problem of pollution, including litter. To date, ten states have container return laws.

The first “bottle bill” introduced in Maine was in 1969 by Rep. Mitchell of Frankfort. It was reported
Ought Not to Pass out of committee. A similar fate awaited the second attempt, introduced in 1971 by
Rep. Ault of Wayne, where what was described as “one of the largest crowds turned out for this
hearing”; it was later voted down by the House. Much of the objections to the bill were concerned with
the difficulty of setting up the system to return beverage containers. After failed attempts in 1973 and
1975, it was 1976 which saw success.

The bill, known as An Act to Improve Solid Waste Management, created Chapter 28 in Title 32 of
Maine's revised statutes. It begins with a Legislative finding:

The Legislature finds that beverage containers are a major source of

nondegradable litter and solid waste in this State and that the
collection and disposal of this litter and solid waste constitutes a great
financial burden to the citizens of this State.

The Act defined what types of containers would require a returnable deposit, detailed how said
deposits were to be handled, established a framework for the creation of redemption centers, and set a
fee for the handling of containers. It also set a date for the ban on sale of cans with “flip tops” and
plastic ring connectors used for six packs.

The bill passed and was sent to the voters as a referendum, where it was approved in November 1976.
The law went into affect in 1978. It allowed retailers to set the deposit value for each container, but to
be not less than five cents.

A nickle.

It is important to recall what things cost in 1976:

A first class postage stamp: 13 cents;

A gallon of regular gasoline: 59 cents;
A dozen eggs: 84 cents;
A call from a pay phone: 10 cents;
A Big Mac: 65 cents; and
A can of soda: 10 cents

In other words, the Legislature set the deposit value of a bottle or can of soda at half what it cost to
purchase it.

Maine's bottle bill has been amended more than a dozen times since it was enacted by referendum in
1976 (an attempt at repealing outright failed in 1979). The handling fee was increased from one cent to
two in 1980 (last increased in 2009). Wine coolers were included under the requirement in 1987. The
deposit value on wine and liquor containers was increased to 15 cents in 1989.

Then in 2015, agency of the deposit containers was moved from the Department of Agriculture to the
Department of Environmental Protection. This is important to note, since the bill (LD 1366) included
the exact Legislative finding from 1976 – that “beverage containers are a major source of
nondegradable litter and solid waste in this State.” Like the deposit amount, that finding has not
changed in 43 years.

The return rate of redeemable containers, while higher than in states that have not enacted a bottle
bill, has been steadily declining over the years. Return rates very by state, with the estimate for
Michigan (with a 10 cent deposit) highest (95%). Maine statute does not require manufacturers to
record sales or return data, an issue that was flagged by the Office of Program Evaluation and
Accountability (OPEG) in its report from May 2018 (see: https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/2316).
This is obviously something that this Committee and the Legislature may want to consider at a future
date.
It is safe to assume that Maine, like other states with a container redemption program, is seeing the
same rates of decline. What the declining trend in the rate of return illustrates is that increasing the
deposit value is long overdue. Setting it at 25 cents will make people think twice about discarding
empty bottles and cans on our state's streets and roads. It is estimated that a nickel in 1976 is worth 23
cents today, so increasing the deposit value to a quarter is in line with the original legislation.

I would offer two friendly amendments for your consideration:

The first is to include all bottled liquor, including the 50ml ones known as “nips,” to this deposit
increase. I agree with those, including former Gov. Paul Lepage, that nips are sold specifically to be
consumed immediately after they are purchased, most often while driving. I have found them left just
outside the door of local retailers in Rockland and, of course, along the road side. (See: MRSA 38
§3103.4).

Secondly, I echo the other bills before you to increase the handling fee paid to redemption centers. As
noted above, it has not been increased since 2009. As you will no doubt hear, the increase in the
minimum wage is putting many redemption centers on the brink of failure. How to set the value
increase is unclear, since if the deposit is increased, it will mean more returnables for centers to
process, in turn providing more revenue via the handling fee.

I hope for your support and vote to report LD 87 “Ought to Pass” out of this committee.

Sincerely,

Gerald Weinand